The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position post-verdict. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.
(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this car accident/bus accident case and its proceedings.)
LEGAL ARGUMENT
EVIDENCE AT TRIAL SUPPORTS THE JURY’S VERDICT AND DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AS SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 629 allows for a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and provides that the court “shall render judgment in favor of the aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for a directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made.” For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
In considering such motions, California Courts uniformly hold that such motions shall be granted only when there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support the verdict rendered. In Newing v. Cheatham (1975) 124 C.R. 193, the court held as follows:
A directed verdict may be granted, when, disregarding conflicting evidence, and indulging every legitimate inference which may be drawn from the evidence in fayor of the party against whom the verdict is directed, it can be said that there is no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict in favor of such party, if such a verdict has been rendered. 124 C.R. at 198.
Thus, in order for plaintiff to prevail in her present motion, a court must determine that, after considering all evidence in a light most favorable to defendants and after allowing all legitimate inferences in favor of defendants, no substantial support is given to the verdict in favor of defendants as rendered by the jury. Examination of the evidence reveals that plaintiff’s motion must fail. The verdict in favor of defendant in this case is support by extensive direct evidence, and numerous inferences properly drawn from such evidence, as discussed below.
In the present case, the jury was presented with proof that plaintiff falsified and misrepresented facts and key evidence in this case. For example, plaintiff described a significant collision and claimed significant movement within the 40-foot bus which she was driving at the time of the subject accident. (See Part 8 of 9.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.