The Supreme Court of Alabama heard arguments Wednesday in SC-2024-0121 over whether two jurors’ undisclosed small-claims court histories were material and therefore required a new trial in a products-liability case that produced an $8.5 million judgment.

The question presented to the court was whether Judge Pipes, the trial judge, abused his discretion when he found the juror nondisclosures likely caused probable prejudice and ordered a new trial, or whether established precedent constrains that remedy. The issue centers on the Freeman factors that govern juror nondisclosure claims and whether those factors — especially materiality — were properly applied.

John Nieman, attorney for Nissan North America Inc. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd., told the court that the case "is about the respect that the law accords to the work of trial judges," and defended Judge Pipes’ factual findings while arguing the judge misread prior cases in concluding he could not order a new trial. Nieman said Judge Pipes took the unusual step of asking both parties for additional time to consider post-trial motions and wrote what Nieman described as an "unusually thoughtful order" finding that "something had gone foundationally wrong with this jury" and that a new trial would be warranted if the judge had an unfettered discretion to do so.

Albert Jordan, attorney for Elise Henderson Brundage, urged the court to defer to precedent and the completed trial. Jordan argued there is "plainly precedent to support the conclusion that the nondisclosure by these 2 jurors of these small collections matters is immaterial," citing cases the parties raised at argument and saying the record contains consent judgments, dismissals and remote small-claims matters that, in his view, do not demonstrate probable prejudice.

Both sides debated whether the materiality test is subjective, objective or a hybrid. Nieman emphasized Judge Pipes’ finding that trial counsel Warren Butler would have struck the jurors if told the truth and that the judge found both subjective and objective materiality; Nieman argued the nondisclosures were particularly important in a products trial because the defense’s central concern was jurors who might be predisposed to an "anti-corporate" narrative. Jordan countered that Alabama precedent and the record supported affirming the verdict and that the Freeman factors can and should be weighed in context without imposing a bright-line rule for small-claims histories.

Justices asked a series of questions about timing, ambiguity of voir dire questions, and whether a juror’s relative’s blindness or other experiences undercut the defendants’ materiality argument. The court probed whether the phrasing of voir dire (including run-on or overlapping questions) could create ambiguity that undermines a finding of intentional or material nondisclosure, and whether appellate review should remand for the trial judge to apply clarified legal standards or resolve the issue itself.

The case arises from a February 2018 collision in which the then-15-year-old plaintiff suffered an airbag deployment that, according to briefing and oral argument, led to temporary total blindness and later permanent blindness in one eye. At trial in February 2023, a jury awarded $8.5 million for the plaintiff’s injuries. Attorneys also discussed expert testimony about the airbag’s deployment threshold (trial testimony cited a 9.1 mph impact and an expert statement that a seat-belted occupant typically requires roughly 15 mph to justify airbag deployment) and alternative design proposals such as a dual-threshold buckle switch.

No final decision was announced. The court thanked counsel for their briefs and questions and took the case under submission for later decision.