The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had copied the plaintiff's music. At trial, the evidence presented a disputed issue on whether copying had in fact occurred. The evidence was not so clearly in the plaintiff's favor that the trial judge could properly have directed a verdict. The plaintiff challenged the result on appeal, but had not excepted to any part of the jury charge.
Issue
When the trial evidence presents a genuine factual dispute over whether the defendant copied the plaintiff's music, and the evidence is not so one-sided in the plaintiff's favor as to justify a directed verdict, may the appellate court affirm if the jury instructions fairly presented the questions for decision?
Rule
If the trial evidence presents a disputed factual issue and is not so clearly in one party's favor as to warrant a directed verdict, the case is for the jury. On appeal, where no exception was taken to the charge, the remaining question is whether the instructions fairly presented the issues the jury had to decide.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Seattle, Nora Keene sued Evan Bell, alleging he copied her advertising jingle for use in a regional radio campaign produced by Sound Harbor Media. At trial, Nora offered testimony and recordings suggesting copying, while Evan presented contrary testimony and documents denying it; the proof pointed both ways.
If Nora argues on appeal that the trial judge should have directed a verdict in her favor, how should the appellate court rule under the governing doctrine?
Explanation. The governing rule is that when the trial evidence presents a disputed factual issue on copying, and the evidence is not so clearly in the plaintiff's favor as to justify a directed verdict, the case belongs to the jury. An appellate court therefore should not say the plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict merely because the plaintiff introduced some supporting evidence.