BEYRER v. THE MULE
2021 OK 45
| Okla. | 2021Background:
- Plaintiff (Francis Johnson; later substituted by Omega Beyrer as personal representative) sued The Mule, LLC for premises liability after Johnson fell at the restaurant; a jury found Johnson 74% negligent and awarded no damages.
- After judgment, 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 lawsuit when he was a minor.
- D.K. submitted an affidavit saying he understood voir dire to ask only about participation in courtroom proceedings, that he had not consulted counsel or participated in the 2005 suit (it was settled soon after filing), and that the incident caused no economic detriment.
- The district court denied the motion for a new trial and awarded the defendant costs including one-half of an expert’s trial appearance fee ($1,500). 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 appellate opinion in part, affirmed the district court’s denial of a new trial (holding the juror’s omission was not material), and left intact the Court of Civil Appeals’ reversal of the costs award (so the district court’s costs award was reversed).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for adjudicating a new-trial motion based on a juror’s silence about prior litigation | Any false, deceptive, or omitted answer about litigation history that prevents further questioning entitles the deceived party to a new trial | Court should examine whether the juror’s answer was material to the controversy and whether it produced prejudice or an unjust result | Trial courts may examine the nature/materiality of the juror’s prior litigation when deciding §651(2) motions; misconduct must materially affect the party’s substantial rights |
| Whether D.K.’s failure to disclose being named defendant in a 2005 auto suit required a new trial | Beyrer: She would have struck or challenged D.K. if she’d known; being a former defendant is per se material to juror qualification in a PI suit | Mule: The omission was not material here—suit occurred 14 years earlier when he was a minor, he did not participate or consult counsel, it was settled, and no economic harm resulted | Omission was not material; no new trial. Trial court denial affirmed |
| Relevance of juror intent or counsel diligence | Plaintiff: Intent of juror (or lack thereof) is irrelevant; focus is on the deceptive answer and lost opportunity to question | Defendant: Courts should consider whether the misstatement was innocent, whether counsel had the opportunity/duty to question, and whether the omission was material | Court did not adopt a per se rule; intent, materiality, and the nature of prior litigation are relevant factors; counsel’s voir dire role and diligence are also considered |
| Trial court award of costs (expert appearance fee) | Beyrer appealed the costs award as unauthorized | Mule sought costs for the expert appearance fee it paid | Court of Civil Appeals’ reversal of the costs award was left undisturbed on certiorari; the district court’s costs award was reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1984) (trial finality and counsel’s voir dire responsibility—honest juror mistakes don’t automatically require a new trial)
- Stillwell v. Johnson, 272 P.2d 365 (Okla. 1954) (adopted principle that deceptive voir dire answers depriving opportunity for follow-up can warrant a new trial)
- Dominion Bank of Middle Tennessee v. Masterson, 928 P.2d 291 (Okla. 1996) (failure to disclose extensive prior litigation deprived party of opportunity to probe juror; new trial warranted)
- Ledbetter v. Howard, 276 P.3d 1031 (Okla. 2012) (single false answer does not automatically require new trial; courts must assess effect of juror’s misconduct)
- Fields v. Saunders, 278 P.3d 577 (Okla. 2012) (deliberate concealment of bias on voir dire that affected impartiality supports new trial)
- Mullinix Construction Co. v. Myers, 358 P.2d 187 (Okla. 1960) (extensive investigation showed no prejudice; denial of new trial affirmed)
- Neumann v. Arrowsmith, 164 P.3d 116 (Okla. 2007) (a material omission can be as significant as an affirmative misstatement when assessing juror qualifications)