Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Cummings v. General Motors Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2004 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRule 50(a)Rule 50(b)judgment as a matter of lawsufficiency of the evidenceplain errormisuse defensediscovery

Facts

The Cummings sued GM after Mrs. Cummings was severely injured in a crash while riding in the front passenger seat of a 1995 Pontiac Grand Am. They claimed defects in the seat, seat belt system, and warnings caused her injuries; GM responded that there was no defect and that her injuries were due to accident forces and her position or posture, including evidence that she may have been reclined, slouched, or turned around. At the close of the evidence, the plaintiffs moved for judgment as a matter of law only on GM's misuse defense, not on liability generally, and they did not renew the motion after the verdict. After trial, they discovered GM videos of child-seat tests from another case and sought Rule 60(b) relief, asserting the videos should have been produced in discovery.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs preserved a broad sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge when their Rule 50(a) motion addressed only misuse and they filed no Rule 50(b) motion after the verdict; whether the district court abused its discretion in its discovery rulings; and whether denial of Rule 60(b)(3) relief based on alleged discovery misconduct was proper.

Rule

Under Rule 50(a), a party challenging the sufficiency of the evidence must move for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury and must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts entitling it to judgment; failure to raise a particular issue bars appellate review of that issue except for plain error constituting a miscarriage of justice. In the Tenth Circuit, failure to file a post-verdict Rule 50(b) motion does not bar appellate review where a proper pre-verdict motion was made, but absent a Rule 50(b) motion an appellate court cannot direct entry of judgment contrary to the verdict and may grant only a new trial. Discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Relief under Rule 60(b)(3) is extraordinary, must be sought within a reasonable time, and requires clear and convincing proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct that substantially interfered with the movant's ability fully and fairly to prepare for and proceed at trial.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a product-liability trial in Denver, Lena Ortiz sued High Mesa Equipment, alleging a ladder was defectively designed and lacked adequate warnings. At the close of all the evidence, Lena moved under Rule 50(a) only on High Mesa's assumption-of-risk defense, arguing no reasonable jury could find she knowingly encountered the danger; the jury later returned a defense verdict, and Lena appealed claiming the evidence was insufficient on defect, warning, and causation.

How should the appellate court treat Lena's broad sufficiency challenge?

Explanation. Rule 50(a) requires the movant to specify the judgment sought and the law and facts entitling the movant to judgment. A motion limited to one defense does not preserve broader sufficiency challenges on other issues. Liberal construction does not erase the requirement that the motion apprise the court and opposing party of the specific insufficiency asserted. Thus only the identified defense is preserved; the unraised liability arguments receive only plain-error review for a miscarriage of justice. (Derived from Cummings v. General Motors Corp. (2004).)