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.
61. Should the court grant the motion?
The man has moved for judgment as a matter of law.
The man calls three witnesses, none of whom had met the decedent or the man before. Two riders testify that they were riding parallel to the man and never saw his bike touch the decedent's bike. A track attendant, who was stationed close to the area where the decedent fell, testifies that he was watching the track and never saw any contact between the decedent and the man.
At trial, the executor's only witness testifies that shortly before the accident he was riding 50 feet behind the man and saw the man rapidly approaching the decedent until they were only a few feet apart. This witness briefly looked away, heard an unusual noise, and immediately afterward saw the decedent and the decedent's bike on the ground.
A decedent's executor has brought a federal diversity action against a man, alleging that while the decedent and the man were riding dirt bikes on a track, the man's bike ran into the decedent's bike, causing the decedent to fall to her death. The man denies fault for the decedent's death.
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
Here, the executor, who bears the burden of proof, presented only the testimony of another bike rider who was not a true eyewitness to the decedent's accident, but who instead provided circumstantial evidence about what he saw before and after the accident. In contrast, the man provided three disinterested witnesses who testified that they never saw any contact between the man and the decedent. Because the testimony of the witnesses is not in actual conflict, and because the executor did not present legally sufficient evidence to support a verdict in the estate's favor, the motion should be granted.
A is incorrect. In this case, the executor is the party with the burden of proof at trial. The executor's evidence consists of one witness who did not actually see the accident but testified to circumstances that might or might not suggest that the man was at fault. In light of the direct evidence provided by the man's testimony and that of his three witnesses, the executor's evidence would not be legally sufficient for the jury to find for the executor. Therefore, the court should grant the man's motion.
B is incorrect. The witnesses' testimony is not in direct conflict, since the executor's witness did not actually see the accident or any contact between the man's bike and the decedent's bike, and the man's witnesses testified that they never saw any contact between the two. Thus, there is no credibility dispute for the jury to resolve.
C is incorrect. When a court considers whether to grant judgment as a matter of law, the court is not to weigh the evidence but, rather, determine whether there is legally sufficient evidence to support a verdict for the party who bears the burden of proof at trial. Here, the nonmoving party, the executor, bears that burden but cannot present legally sufficient evidence, so judgment as a matter of law is proper.