## Facts

- Tammera McCool received obstetrical care from Dr. Gehret and experienced postpartum complications that led to multiple surgeries and permanent sterility.
- The McCools sued Dr. Gehret and others in Delaware Superior Court for medical malpractice and later amended the complaint to add a tortious-interference claim involving their relationship with an expert witness.
- The amended complaint included a jury demand on both claims.
- A jury tried the malpractice claim and returned a defense verdict; the jury was then discharged without hearing the tortious-interference claim.
- After the malpractice verdict, the trial judge indicated willingness to decide the tortious-interference claim in a bench trial, and the plaintiffs agreed in that setting.
- Before the tortious-interference claim was tried, the original judge declined to hear it, and the case was reassigned to a second judge.
- The McCools objected to a bench trial before the second judge and asserted that their jury demand remained in effect.
- Over the objection, the second judge conducted a bench trial and entered judgment for Dr. Gehret on the tortious-interference claim.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs effectively waived their Delaware constitutional right to a jury trial on the tortious-interference claim by agreeing to a bench trial in response to the first judge’s offer to try that claim himself.
2. Whether, after reassignment to a different judge and the plaintiffs’ renewed request for a jury, the Superior Court could proceed with a bench trial based on the earlier agreement.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment on the tortious-interference claim.
- The court held the plaintiffs did not clearly, knowingly, and voluntarily waive their right to a jury trial for that claim under Article I, § 4 of the Delaware Constitution.
- The case was remanded for a new jury trial on the tortious-interference claim.
- The jury verdict for Dr. Gehret on the medical-malpractice claim was not disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- The civil jury-trial right, where it existed at common law, is a fundamental right protected by Article I, § 4 of the Delaware Constitution, and courts presume against waiver.
- Waiver of the constitutional jury right must be knowing, voluntary, and intentional; it is not implied from ambiguous circumstances.
- When a party has made a proper jury demand, the action remains triable by jury as of right unless there is a clear, unequivocal waiver (commonly by written stipulation or an unambiguous on-the-record agreement).
- An agreement to proceed without a jury that is tied to a specific judge or specific context does not automatically transfer to materially changed circumstances; ambiguity is resolved in favor of preserving the jury right.
- Wrongful denial of a jury trial requires reversal and a new jury trial on the affected claim.

## Conclusion

Because the plaintiffs’ post-verdict assent to a bench trial was context-specific and not an unconditional, unequivocal waiver, the Superior Court violated their constitutional jury-trial right by trying the tortious-interference claim to a different judge over their timely objection; the proper remedy was remand for a jury trial.


McCool v. Gehret, 657 A.2d 269 (Del. 1995)