Background
The estate of Harold Gene Price and his widow sued medical providers, alleging that they failed to follow up on a 2017 MRI showing a lesion on Harold Price’s right kidney. Price was diagnosed with kidney cancer in 2020 and died less than five months later. The claims against several defendants were dismissed, and the remaining claims proceeded to trial against three sets of providers.
During voir dire, Price challenged four prospective jurors for cause under R.C. 2313.17(B)(9), arguing that their answers showed they could not be impartial or would require proof beyond the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. The trial court denied the challenges. Price used peremptory strikes on two of those jurors, a third left the panel after a panic attack, and the fourth served. The jury returned a defense verdict, and the Second District affirmed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a challenge under R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) is a principal challenge. Once such a challenge is valid—that is, once the prospective juror’s answers establish an inability to be fair and impartial or unwillingness to follow the court’s instructions—the juror is absolutely disqualified. A trial court has no discretion to retain that juror. The court overruled Berk v. Matthews and Hall v. Banc One Mgt. Corp. to the extent those decisions held otherwise.
But the trial court must first try the validity of the principal challenge by considering the prospective juror’s answers throughout voir dire. Appellate courts review that validity determination for support by competent, credible evidence, not for abuse of discretion. Although the Second District used the wrong standard, the record supported the trial court’s conclusion that the four challenged jurors had not disclosed disqualifying partiality or an unwillingness to follow the law. The court therefore affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A valid R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) challenge requires automatic disqualification; the trial court cannot rehabilitate or retain the juror through discretion.
- The trial court must determine whether the challenge is valid based on the prospective juror’s answers in context during the full voir dire process.
- Review of that validity determination asks whether competent, credible evidence supports it, rather than whether the trial court abused its discretion.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies Ohio jury-selection law in civil cases and removes the discretionary standard previously applied to a juror’s disclosed inability to be impartial or follow the law. Litigants must still develop a clear voir dire record: isolated answers or responses to broad, potentially confusing group questions may not establish a valid principal challenge.