2021 Ohio 4240
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- March 10, 2016 sideswipe collision between Jeffrey Long and Michael Harding; Harding admitted negligence, so trial issues were causation and damages.
- Jeffrey alleged severe back injury (L5-S1 herniation), later surgery, and need for further surgery; Karen asserted derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
- Defense presented a biomechanical expert and Dr. Steven Wunder who opined the crash forces were minor and Jeffrey’s herniation was not causally related to the accident.
- Plaintiffs challenged four prospective jurors for cause (including Juror 929); the court denied those challenges and Plaintiffs used peremptories on other jurors.
- Jury awarded Jeffrey $7,296.02 (past medical $5,296.02; past pain & suffering $2,000) and found for defendant on Karen’s loss-of-consortium claim; trial court split costs between Karen and Harding.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred in denying challenge for cause to Juror 929 | Juror 929 expressed bias against personal-injury plaintiffs who "push" claims and thus could not be impartial | Juror acknowledged skepticism but said she would scrutinize evidence and could follow the law; trial court afforded deference | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; juror did not state inability to be impartial or to follow the law |
| Whether trial court erred by refusing to exclude defense expert Dr. Wunder for failing to produce materials subpoenaed | Dr. Wunder relied on literature but did not produce underlying materials; exclusion was proper sanction for discovery violation | Wunder produced written reports meeting Civ.R.26; plaintiffs never moved to compel or seek timely court relief and showed no prejudice | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion in denying exclusion; discovery sanction was not warranted given rules and plaintiffs’ delay |
| Whether court abused discretion by splitting costs between Karen (losing on her claim) and Harding | Karen’s loss-of-consortium is derivative of Jeffrey’s claim so prevailing party shouldn’t recover costs from his own wife | Loss-of-consortium is a legally separate, independent claim; court has discretion under Civ.R.54(D) to allocate costs | Affirmed — splitting costs was within the court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Banc One Mgt. Corp., 114 Ohio St.3d 484 (Ohio 2007) (trial court makes subjective/discretionary determination of juror fairness)
- Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161 (Ohio 1990) (definition of abuse of discretion and deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (Ohio 1996) (trial court has broad discretion in discovery rulings)
- Grady v. Charles Kalinsky, D.D.S., Inc., 165 Ohio App.3d 306 (Ohio App. 2005) (exclusion of reliable probative evidence is a severe sanction to be used sparingly)
- Klem v. Consol. Rail Corp., 191 Ohio App.3d 690 (Ohio App. 2010) (juror inability to set aside a specific legal doctrine warranted removal for cause)
- Schaefer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 76 Ohio St.3d 553 (Ohio 1996) (loss-of-consortium claim is derivative yet legally separate and requires independent proof)
- Vance v. Roedersheimer, 64 Ohio St.3d 552 (Ohio 1992) (trial court discretion to award or apportion costs under Civ.R.54(D))
- Nickey v. Brown, 7 Ohio App.3d 32 (Ohio App. 1982) (commentary that excluding reliable probative evidence is a severe sanction)