Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
3. What standard should the court apply to determine how to rule on the motion?
The railroad has made a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.
At the close of the evidence, the railroad moved for judgment as a matter of law, which was denied, and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for the widow.
A railroad worker's widow brought a wrongful death action in federal court against the railroad, claiming that its negligence had caused her husband's death. At trial, the widow offered the testimony of a coworker of the husband. The coworker testified that he had seen the rail car on which the husband was riding slow down and the cars behind it gain speed. The coworker also stated that he later heard a loud crash, but did not turn around to look because loud noises were common in the yard. Three other railroad employees testified that no collision had occurred.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 50(a) the standard for granting a motion for a judgment as a matter of law: 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 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 (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.
D is correct. This question is testing your knowledge of the correct standard for a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, formerly known as a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The renewed motion was properly made here because the moving party correctly moved for a judgment as a matter of law at the close of evidence. After the jury verdict, the moving party properly renewed the motion. The standard for a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is the same as a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Either motion will be granted if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, was such that no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the non-moving party.
A is incorrect. This choice states the standard for summary judgment. Although a motion for summary judgment is also considered a judgment made as a matter of law, the motion can be filed up to 30 days after the close of discovery and will be granted if the non-moving party fails to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for trial. These motions are typically filed before trial, not after.
B is incorrect. This choice states the standard for a new trial. After the close of trial, a motion for a new trial will be granted in the court's discretion for either: (i) errors at trial which substantially affected a party's rights; or (ii) if the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
C is incorrect. The scintilla of evidence rule is an old common law standard used for summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law that has been widely discarded by most states in favor of the federal standard of substantial evidence. The instructions to the MBE clearly note that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are in place. The FRCP have precedence over any state rules or common law standards unless instructed otherwise.