BEYRER v. THE MULE, 496 P.3d 983

Background

Plaintiff (Johnson; later substituted by Beyrer as personal representative) sued The Mule, LLC for premises liability after Johnson fell; a jury found Johnson 74% negligent, the Restaurant 24% negligent, and awarded no damages.
Plaintiff moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct: the jury foreman (D.K.) failed during defendant’s voir dire to disclose he had been named as a defendant in a 2005 motor-vehicle tort suit.
Facts about D.K.’s prior litigation: the accident and suit occurred 14 years earlier when he was a minor; he did not consult counsel or otherwise participate; the suit settled soon after filing; there is no record of economic detriment.
The trial court denied the new-trial motion and awarded defendant $1,500 (one-half of plaintiff’s expert’s in‑court fee) as costs.
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the denial of the new trial and reversed the costs award; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated and withdrew the COCA opinion in part, affirmed the trial court’s denial of a new trial, and reversed the trial court’s costs award consistent with COCA’s costs disposition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard for adjudicating juror nondisclosure on a motion for new trial	Any false or deceptive answer about litigation history that deprives counsel of inquiry entitles plaintiff to a new trial; trial court should not inquire into juror's motives or materiality.	Trial court should assess whether the juror's inaccurate answer or silence was material to the case and whether it affected the fairness of the trial (i.e., caused prejudice).	A trial court may examine the nature and materiality of a juror's prior litigation when deciding a §651(2) new-trial motion based on voir dire nondisclosure.
Whether D.K.’s silence warranted a new trial	D.K.’s failure to disclose that he had been a named defendant deprived plaintiff of the opportunity to challenge or strike him; such nondisclosure is per se grounds for a new trial.	D.K.’s omission was not material to this premises-liability case given the remote, minor‑age, nonparticipatory, settled nature of the prior motor-vehicle suit; no prejudice resulted.	No new trial. D.K.’s omission was not "materially" affecting plaintiff’s substantial rights because the prior suit (1) occurred when he was a minor 14 years earlier, (2) involved no lawyer contact or participation by him, (3) settled quickly, and (4) shows no economic detriment.
Trial costs award for defendant’s expert appearance	(Plaintiff) Challenged award of $1,500 as unsupported by statute.	(Defendant) Sought one-half of expert’s in-court fee as costs.	The Supreme Court left intact COCA’s reversal of the trial court’s costs award (trial-court award reversed on that issue).

Key Cases Cited

McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1984) (a juror's honest mistake on voir dire does not automatically require a new trial; counsel bears responsibility to pursue voir dire information).
Stillwell v. Johnson, 272 P.2d 365 (Okla. 1954) (Oklahoma precedent adopting principles that false answers on voir dire depriving counsel of inquiry can support a new trial).
Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee v. Masterson, 928 P.2d 291 (Okla. 1996) (failure to disclose extensive prior litigation deprived a party of opportunity to probe juror; new trial warranted).
Neumann v. Arrowsmith, 164 P.3d 116 (Okla. 2007) (material omission can be as powerful as an affirmative misstatement for voir dire purposes).
Ledbetter v. Howard, 276 P.3d 1031 (Okla. 2012) (single false answer on voir dire does not automatically require a new trial; courts must examine effect and intent).
James v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 292 P.3d 10 (Okla. 2012) (where counsel were barred from probing juror questionnaire answers, concealment of pertinent information warranted a new trial).
Mullinix Construction Co. v. Myers, 358 P.2d 187 (Okla. 1960) (extensive investigation failed to show bias or prejudice; denial of new trial affirmed).