## Facts

- Jeffrey Blum was born in 1980 with bilateral talus equinovarus (club feet).
- During pregnancy, his mother took Bendectin, a prescription drug for nausea.
- The Blums sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (manufacturer) and Rite-Aid Pharmacy (supplier), alleging Bendectin caused the birth defects.
- Merrell Dow timely served a written demand for a 12-person jury (and alternates); the trial court granted a 12-person jury but did not seat alternates.
- During trial, one juror became ill and failed to appear; Merrell Dow objected to continuing with 11 jurors.
- The trial court proceeded with 11 jurors over objection, and the 11-person jury returned a plaintiff’s verdict.
- Post-trial, the trial court entered judgment n.o.v. for Rite-Aid and denied Merrell Dow’s request for judgment n.o.v. or a new trial.
- The Superior Court affirmed judgment n.o.v. for Rite-Aid and ordered a new trial as to Merrell Dow because the verdict was returned by 11 jurors despite a proper demand for 12.
- The Blums sought review of the new-trial order in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Article I, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution entitles a party who properly demands a 12-person civil jury to a verdict rendered by 12 jurors, such that proceeding with 11 over objection requires a new trial.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s order granting a new trial as to Merrell Dow.
- The court held that Article I, Section 6 entitles a party who properly demands a 12-person jury to a verdict from a 12-person jury.
- Because Merrell Dow timely demanded 12 jurors and objected to proceeding with 11, the 11-juror verdict could not stand.
- The judgment n.o.v. for Rite-Aid remained undisturbed; the case against Merrell Dow was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, Section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution preserves the civil jury trial as it existed at common law, including its essential characteristics.
- When a party timely and properly demands a 12-person jury in a Pennsylvania civil case, that party has a constitutional right to a verdict rendered by 12 jurors.
- A trial court may not reduce the jury below 12 and accept a verdict from fewer jurors over the demanding party’s objection; the proper remedy is a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a timely demand for a 12-person civil jury triggers a constitutional entitlement to a 12-juror verdict, and that accepting an 11-juror verdict over objection is reversible error requiring a new trial.


Blum v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 626 A.2d 537 (Pa. 1993)