A panel of justices from the First Court of Appeals in Houston has determined that allegations of juror misconduct in a products liability trial against Nissan did not mandate a new trial, as a Harris County district judge had found.
A jury had sided with Nissan in March, issuing a take-nothing verdict in the lawsuit brought by Deana A. Rios following the April 2022 death of her husband. In a 46-page opinion issued Thursday and authored by Chief Justice Terry Adams, the panel held Harris County District Judge Fredericka Phillips had abused her discretion by granting Rios a new trial, in part by relying on inadmissible testimony from some of the jurors about deliberations in the case.
The panel pointed to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 327(a) and Texas Rule of Evidence 606(b), both of which “prohibit jurors from testifying about statements or matters occurring during jury deliberations unless such testimony is about an outside influence improperly brought to bear on a juror.”
In this case, the panel held, the testimony elicited was not related to any “outside influence” and therefore is inadmissible.
“Because these are statements about matters that occurred during the jury’s deliberations, they are inadmissible unless discussing an outside influence,” the panel wrote. “We agree with Nissan that these statements do not constitute evidence of an outside influence.”
Christopher Kratovil of Dykema, who represents Nissan, issued a statement to The Texas Lawbook regarding the appellate victory.
“We’re grateful for the time and attention that the First Court of Appeals invested into this important case,” he said. “The Court’s carefully reasoned opinion speaks for itself, and we strongly believe the Court reached the correct legal conclusions.”
Robert C. Hilliard of Hilliard Law, who represents Rios, issued a statement to The Lawbook that the court’s decision “is not justice.”
“Jury misconduct such as occurred here, the considering outside information, the discussing the case before deliberations, and also allowing personal prejudices to influence the decision-making, contributed to an unfair outcome and likely a very different verdict,” he wrote.
“What happened in this case undermines the core principles of fairness, impartiality, and the right to a fair trial for the Rios family. It’s disheartening that even though the trial judge, Judge Phillips, understood the gravity and seriousness of this misconduct, weighed the strong testimony of the jurors regarding the misconduct they observed — and in a thoughtful and detailed 19-page opinion set out her strong reasons for granting a new trial — the court of appeals chooses to acquiesce to Nissan’s ‘yeah, so what if it did’ position.”
Rios filed the lawsuit May 12, 2022, less than a month after her husband, Adam Rios, died of injuries suffered when his 2020 Nissan Titan XD crew pickup truck caught fire while he was driving. Rios, who was seeking more than $750 million in damages, had alleged the fire that killed her husband was the result of a defect in the pickup’s “engine gas ignition wire harness.”
A jury that heard three weeks of evidence and testimony in early 2024 sided with Nissan in an 11-1 verdict returned March 8. Rios moved for a new trial on March 22, and Judge Phillips granted the motion and ordered a new trial May 8.
“The court has found that juror misconduct occurred,” she wrote in the 19-page order. “In a hotly contested case, that misconduct supports an inference that the conduct tainted the jury’s verdict.”
According to court documents, the day after the jury returned the verdict in Nissan’s favor, a juror referred to as Juror 31 — who also was the sole vote against Nissan — contacted the court’s bailiff to report what she alleged was improper conduct on behalf of Juror 24 both before and during deliberations.
Essentially, Juror 31 alleged Juror 24 improperly told the rest of the panel he had made up his mind about the case on the first day of testimony and told other jurors the Rios family had a lawsuit against Memorial Hermann that would result in them receiving some damages. Juror 31 alleged that Juror 24’s commentary about the Memorial Hermann lawsuit caused many jurors to change their vote, transforming what was a 6-6 deadlock into an 11-1 verdict in favor of Nissan.
At a hearing before Judge Phillips on the motion for a new trial, Juror 31, Juror 33 (who echoed allegations made by Juror 31) and Juror 24 all testified.
Under questioning from Nissan, Juror 24 “testified that he did not recall making a statement about another lawsuit against Memorial Hermann, but recalled statements made in closing that the medical costs had ‘already been paid.’ Finally, Juror 24 admitted that he made a statement to other jurors that he had made up his mind on day one, i.e., during opening statements. But he explained that he had not ‘totally made up [his] mind,’ and still listened to all the evidence throughout the trial.”
Judge Phillips found the comments by Juror 24 about the Memorial Hermann lawsuit didn’t come from evidence at trial but from an “outside influence” and also that the comments had an impact on the jury’s verdict.
The First Court of Appeals panel disagreed with that conclusion, noting there were references to Memorial Hermann being a party to litigation in two exhibits introduced at trial by Nissan as well as a mention of medical bills being paid during closing arguments.
“Considering that fact, and the complete lack of any evidence as to an outside source for Juror 24’s statement, we cannot agree that the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that Juror 24’s speculation about ‘another lawsuit’ amounted to an outside influence improperly brought to bear on the jury,” the panel held.
The appellate panel also took time to explain the policy reasons why “unfettered investigations” into jury deliberations in order to prove juror misconduct should not be allowed:
- To encourage jurors to deliberate candidly without fear of public scrutiny,
- To protect jurors from “post-trial harassment or tampering” and to encourage future participation in the jury system,
- To prevent a “disgruntled juror” whose opinions didn’t sway the jury from seeking “vindication,” and
- To provide finality to maintain public confidence in court judgments.
Justices Richard Hightower and Julie Countiss also sat on the panel.
Rios is represented by Daryl L. Moore of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, S. Scott West of The West Law Firm and Robert C. Hilliard, Catherine T. Hilliard, Michael E. Richardson, Jessica J. Pritchett and Alexander HIlliard of Hilliard Law.
Nissan is also represented by Brandy R. Manning, Michael R. Carey, Melanie L. Fry, Daniela Gonzales Aldape and Brooke M. Bohlen of Dykema Gossett The case number is 01-24-00512-CV.
Update: This story has been updated with comment from counsel for Rios.