Eastley v. Volkman
132 Ohio St. 3d 328
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Eastley sued Volkman and Tri-State for medical malpractice and Huffman for negligence and vicarious liability related to son Hieneman's death.
- Jury trial held February 4, 2008; Eastley showed death from acute combination of prescribed opioids and benzodiazepines.
- Huffman moved for directed verdict at trial end; motion denied but she did not renew it or file post-verdict motions.
- Trial court instructed on negligence rather than agency by estoppel due to lack of vicarious-liability evidence.
- Fourth District affirmed; one judge dissented on weight review; decision questioned whether renewal motions were required.
- Ohio Constitution Article IV, Section 3(B)(3) requires unanimous appellate review for weight-of-evidence reversals; court reversed and remanded for proper weight-review analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether renewal motions are required to review weight of the evidence on appeal | Huffman: renewal required | Huffman: renewal not required | Not required; weight review available on record evidence. |
| Whether Thompkins governs manifest-weight review in civil cases | Weight review identical to criminal standard | Distinction between weight and sufficiency persists | Thompkins standard applies in civil cases. |
| Whether manifest-weight review can proceed without Civ.R. 50/JNOV motions | Appeal on weight without renewals permitted | Motions govern sufficiency, not weight | Motions not prerequisite; weight review allowed on record. |
| What standard governs appellate review when weight of evidence is challenged | Civil and criminal standards conflated | Distinct standards remain; weight review appropriate | Thompkins-style weight review applicable in civil cases. |
| Disposition on weight-of-evidence issue | Remand unnecessary if weight supports verdict | Remand appropriate for weight review | Judgment reversed and remanded for weight-of-evidence consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (establishes separate sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (some competent evidence standard for weight review; pre-Thompkins framework)
- Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (Ohio 2007) (civil manifest-weight discussion referenced merger concerns)
- Bryan-Wollman v. Domonko, 115 Ohio St.3d 291 (Ohio 2007) (unanimous panel requirement for civil weight reversals)
- Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (preservation of judgment and weight principles in appellate review)
- Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82 (Ohio 1970) (distinguishes weight-based review from sufficiency references)
- Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 66 (Ohio 1982) (sufficiency vs. weight distinctions in directed verdict contexts)