Dorn v. Three Rivers School Dist.

Under State v. Wright, a party may not challenge an adverse for-cause ruling on appeal if the party could have used an available peremptory challenge to cure any prejudice flowing from that ruling. 294 Or App 772 (2018).

Employee brought an action to recover damages caused by Employer’s breach of a settlement agreement. After ruling on summary judgment that Employer breached the agreement, the trial court empaneled a jury to determine whether Employee was entitled to damages. On appeal, Employee argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to excuse a juror for cause. “A party seeking to challenge a trial court’s denial of a for-cause challenge to a potential juror must create a record establishing prejudice in two distinct respects.” State v. Wright, 294 Or App 772, 773 (2018) (emphasis in original). “First, a party must exhaust all peremptory challenges” and “[s]econd, even after a party exhausts all peremptory challenges, the litigant must create a record that he or she ‘was compelled to accept an objectionable juror.’” Id. at 774. The Court found it difficult to see how Employee could argued that she was “compelled to accept” the juror “when she could have but did not use an available peremptory challenge to remove him from the jury.” Thus, the Court held that Employee failed to create a record establishing that the trial court’s for-cause ruling prejudiced her. Affirmed.