Alabama Supreme Court hears dispute over new trial after juror nondisclosures in Nissan airbag case

The Supreme Court of Alabama heard oral argument in SC-2024-0121 on whether a trial judge erred by concluding two jurors failed to disclose prior collections litigation and by ordering a new trial in a products-liability suit against Nissan North America Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. The court heard lawyers for both sides on questions of materiality under the Freeman factors and whether existing Alabama precedent constrained the trial judge’s authority; the court took the case under submission.

The question centers on whether the nondisclosures were “material” under Alabama law and whether Judge Pipes, the trial judge below, properly exercised his discretion. John Nieman, counsel for appellants Nissan, told the justices that Judge Pipes’ factual findings — including that the jurors’ undisclosed litigation would have been struck for cause or by peremptory challenge — were correct and that the judge properly concluded the nondisclosures caused probable prejudice. “When my clients filed their motions for post judgment relief, Judge Pipes took the highly unusual step of asking the parties to consent to additional time beyond the normal 90 days so that he could adequately consider and address issues that he would later describe as extremely concerning to him,” Nieman said, arguing that the judge’s meticulous order should be respected.

Nieman asked the court to reject the opposing…