2. Should the court grant the motion?

If the case reaches a jury, either party may move for a judgment as a matter of law, also referred to as a directed verdict, which has the effect of taking the case away from the jury and determining the outcome as a matter of law. FRCP 50(a)(1) states that if a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may resolve the issue against the party and grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party, on a claim or defense that under the controlling law can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.

The movant must make a motion for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury. FRCP 50 also permits a judge to reserve judgment on a motion for judgment as a matter of law and submit the case to the jury. If the jury decides against the party who moved for judgment as a matter of law, the judge can then evaluate the legal sufficiency on the evidence on a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.

B is correct. The court should not grant the motion because the question of whether the man's behavior was «unduly risky» is an issue of fact that the jury should decide. A motion for judgment as a matter of law seeks to take the case away from the jury, which is why the standard is that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for a party on a given issue. Based on the facts presented, it is incorrect that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the man on this issue. The burden was on the company to establish that the man's behavior was «unduly risky,» a reasonable jury COULD find for the man given that the sole evidence used to establish his behavior was the testimony about the warning sign. There was no witness testimony from anyone with firsthand knowledge about how the man actually behaved. The jury should determine whether that evidence alone is enough to find the man's behavior unduly risky. A reasonable jury might conclude that the warning signs were designed to keep bikers out of the area for reasons other than risk, such as trespassing, given no additional evidence as to why the signs were posted.

A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. This is an incorrect statement of the law. A motion for judgment as a matter of law need only be made before the case is submitted to the jury. There is no requirement that it be made at the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief.

C is incorrect. The fact that the man did not introduce any evidence to contradict the testimony about the warning signs does not in itself show that the company met its burden to establish that the man's behavior was «unduly risky.» The jury must determine the meaning of the warning signs and whether the signs alone establish that the man's behavior was unduly risky. As explained above, a reasonable jury might conclude that the warning signs were designed to keep bikers out of the area for reasons other than risk, given no additional evidence as to why the signs were posted. Therefore, the testimony, standing alone, does not establish that a reasonable jury could determine that the company had met its burden to prove that the area was actually dangerous.

D is incorrect. The company properly raised the issue of whether the man's behavior was unduly risky and excluded from coverage as a defense to the man's claim. Therefore, the man had no obligation to raise the issue of the warning signs in his case-in-chief in anticipation of this possible defense. He had the option to either rebut the issue on cross-examination or remain silent, which is what he chose to do, and allowed the jury to determine whether the testimony about the sign was sufficient to satisfy the company's burden of proof.