Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this medical malpractice case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
PLAINTIFF BILLIE JOHNSON hereby moves for an Order for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of her Motion.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE A MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED HAD A PREVIOUS MOTION BEEN MADE AND BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR REASONABLE INFERENCES DRAWN THEREFROM TO SUPPORT A VERDICT IN THE DEFENDANTS’ FAVOR
A. Statutory and Case Authority for Granting Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
Before the expiration of its power to rule on a motion for new trial, the court, on motion of a party against whom a verdict has been rendered, must render judgment in favor of an aggrieved party notwithstanding the verdict whenever a motion for directed verdict for the aggrieved party should have been granted had a previous motion been made. Code of Civil Procedure §629. The grounds for granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict are the same as for granting a motion for directed verdict. See Wright v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 318, 343, 268 Cal.Rptr. 309; Trammell v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 538, 556, 129 Cal.Rptr. 361.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
In general, the purpose of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not to afford a review of the jury’s deliberation but to prevent a miscarriage of justice in those cases where the verdict rendered is without foundation. Sukff v. Lemkin (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 740, 743,249 Cal.Rptr. 42; Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 284, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 596. (See Part 2 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.