36. What is the best way for the doctor to seek relief from the judgment?

In both federal and state trials, either party may move for a directed verdict. 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 both sides have rested.

The trial court in both state and federal courts also has wide discretion to grant a motion for a new trial. The FRCP set two different standards for granting new trials: one for jury trials, and another standard 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 under 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 will 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 a motion for a new trial under FRCP 50. If the judge grants the judgment as a matter of law motion, 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.

C is correct. A party may make a motion for a new trial no later than 28 days after the judgment if the party believes there was an error during the trial. Motions for a new trial may be made for errors concerning the admissibility of evidence, jury instructions, juror misconduct, excessive or inadequate verdicts, or if the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.

In this case, the doctor is challenging the admissibility of certain evidence admitted during the course of the trial. Therefore, his best course of action would be to file a motion for a new trial.

A is incorrect. It is incorrect to assert that the doctor has no available avenue for relief. A party may bring a post-trial motion to challenge an error of law at the trial, including the admission of evidence. Here, the doctor may therefore move for a new trial on the basis that the evidence offered by the engineer was improperly admitted at trial.

B is incorrect. An appeal is not the best option available to the doctor at this stage of proceedings. Instead, the doctor's attorney may make a motion for a new trial and later, if unsuccessful, may appeal.

D is incorrect. It is true that the doctor may make a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law because he did move for judgment as a matter of law during the trial.

However, in this case, a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is not the best avenue of relief. A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if, based on the evidence presented, no reasonable judge or jury could have reached the verdict decided. Here, the doctor wants to challenge an error at the trial, the admission of certain evidence, which is best done in a motion for a new trial.