27. Which is the court's most likely response to the doctor's motions?

In both federal and state trials, either party may move for a directed verdict. In federal courts, this is called a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Such a motion takes the case away from the jury and determines the outcome as a matter of law.

This motion for a directed verdict is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 50.

FRCP 50(a)(1) stipulates that a party may only make a motion for a directed verdict when the other party has been fully heard on an issue. In practice, this means that the defendant may move for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff's case, and either party may move for a directed verdict after the close of the defendant's case.

FRCP 50 also states the standard for granting a directed verdict: 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:

(i) resolve the issue against the party; AND

(ii) 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.

FRCP 50 also permits a judge to reserve judgment on a motion for a directed verdict 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 of the evidence on a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (previously known as a judgment notwithstanding the verdict). The most important aspect of making this kind of motion is that the movant must make a motion for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury.

In both state and federal courts, trial courts also have the broad discretion to grant a motion for a new trial. The FRCP sets two different standards for granting new trials: one for jury trials, and another for non-jury cases. When there has been a jury trial, the judge may order a new trial for any reason for which a new trial has been granted in an action at law in federal court, pursuant to FRCP 59(a)(1). When the action was tried without a jury, a new trial may be granted for any of the reasons an equity court would have granted the hearing under FRCP 59(a)(2).

Most jurisdictions allow the trial judge to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence and order a new trial. The federal standard permits a judge to grant a new trial on motion if the judge is of the opinion that the verdict is against the clear weight of evidence, even if there is also substantial evidence that would prevent the direction of a verdict.

In federal practice, a motion for judgment as a matter of law may be combined with one for a new trial under FRCP 50(b). If the judge grants the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the judge must also rule conditionally on the new trial motion. Later, if the judgment as a matter of law is reversed on appeal, the new trial will then occur automatically unless the appeals court specifies otherwise.

D is correct. Procedurally, the doctor's lawyer has correctly filed his motions in the proper order. As explained above, FRCP 50 allows a motion to be made, as soon as the defendant has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial, to petition the court to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law on that issue. The doctor's lawyer filed the motion at the correct time — before the case was submitted to the jury — to renew the doctor's motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Further, renewing a motion for judgment as a matter of law while also making a motion in the alternative for a new trial is allowed under FRCP 50. When these motions are combined and the judge grants a judgment as a matter of law for the movant, the judge must also conditionally rule on the motion for a new trial, which is exactly what this answer choice indicates.

A is incorrect. As explained above, FRCP 50(b) permits a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for a new trial to be filed in conjunction. If a judge grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, when the movant also filed a motion for a new trial at the same time, the judge must also conditionally grant the new trial motion. The purpose of this conditional ruling saves time because the appeals court is not obliged to remain for a determination of whether to award a new trial. If the trial judge conditionally grants the new trial, and the appeals court reverses the judgment as a matter of law previously granted, a new trial will occur automatically.

B is incorrect. The doctor's motion for judgment as a matter of law was timely. The doctor's lawyer submitted this motion after the patient's lawyer had completely presented their case to the jury, meaning the patient had been «fully heard» on the issue. The doctor's lawyer could have filed the motion any time after the patient had been fully heard.

C is incorrect. This answer correctly identifies that the doctor's renewed motion should be considered on the merits, but, as explained above, FRCP 50(b) explicitly allows federal judges to consider renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law, and then if that motion is granted, conditionally grant a new trial.