Martin v. Durrani
2016 Ohio 5472
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Julie and Stanley Martin sued Dr. Abubakar Durrani, his practice (CAST), West Chester Hospital, LLC, and UC Health for malpractice and related claims based on treatment from Dec 2011–May 2012.
- After extensive discovery, a three-week jury trial was held in June–July 2015 before Judge Guy Guckenberger. The jury returned a defense verdict for Durrani and CAST; the court dismissed claims against WCH and UC Health and entered judgment on Aug. 4, 2015.
- Plaintiffs moved for a new trial under Civ.R. 59(A)(1), alleging the defense conveyed unadmitted/wrong exhibits (Defense Exhibits E–H) to the jury during deliberations. An evidence custodian’s affidavit supported that some submitted binder contents differed from the inventory.
- Shortly after the motion, plaintiffs signaled intent to file an affidavit of judicial disqualification; Judge Guckenberger recused and Judge Kessler handled the new-trial motion hearing.
- The trial court (Judge Kessler) granted a new trial under Civ.R. 59(A)(1) due to an “irregularity” from the jury’s presumed consideration of unadmitted evidence.
- On appeal, the court reversed, holding plaintiffs forfeited the right to challenge the submitted exhibits because their trial counsel declined to review binders E–H when given the opportunity and thus invited/induced the error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial because unadmitted/wrong exhibits were given to the jury | Martins: Conveyance of unadmitted evidence to jury was an irregularity preventing a fair trial and warranted a new trial under Civ.R. 59(A)(1) | Defendants: Plaintiffs forfeited objection and invited the error by declining to review binders E–H when offered; any irregularity was therefore invited and not a basis for a new trial | Reversed: appellants sustained. Court held plaintiffs forfeited the objection and invited the error, so granting a new trial was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether judicial recusal/temporary reassignment required reversal or affected the new-trial decision | Martins: Implied bias and procedural issues from recusals and reassignment undermined fairness | Defendants: No reversible error tied to reassignment; the decision rests on forfeiture/invited error | Court treated recusal/assignment issues as not controlling and rendered those arguments moot given its forfeiture ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharp v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 307 (Ohio 1995) (standard for reviewing motions for new trial).
- Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 70 Ohio St.2d 207 (Ohio 1982) (trial counsel must call errors to court when they can be corrected).
- State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (distinguishing forfeiture from waiver; forfeiture = failure to timely assert a right).
- State ex rel. Mason v. Griffin, 90 Ohio St.3d 299 (Ohio 2000) (a party may not take advantage of an error it invited).