Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan

Supreme Court of the United States · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRule 50(b)Judgment notwithstanding the verdictNew trial motionsAppellate procedureFRCP 50(b)JNOVjudgment n.o.v.

Facts

The plaintiff sued for personal injuries allegedly suffered while working for the defendant, asserting liability under an Arkansas statute for injuries caused by the negligence of a fellow employee. The defendant denied the employment relationship, denied negligence and causation, and asserted assumption of risk. At the close of the evidence, the defendant moved for a directed verdict; after the motion was denied and the jury found for the plaintiff, the defendant timely filed a written Rule 50(b) motion seeking judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, a new trial. The motion for judgment challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, while the new-trial motion also raised additional grounds such as excessive damages, evidentiary rulings, and refusal of requested instructions.

Issue

When a party files under Rule 50(b) a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict together with an alternative motion for a new trial, does the trial court's grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict automatically deny or eliminate the new-trial motion? More broadly, what procedure should the trial judge follow when both motions are presented?

Rule

Rule 50(b) does not make the grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict an automatic denial of an alternative motion for a new trial. If both motions are presented, the trial judge should rule on the motion for judgment and should also rule on the motion for a new trial, stating the grounds for that decision. A motion for judgment tests whether, as a matter of law, the opposing party failed to make a case; a motion for a new trial serves a different office and may rest on discretionary grounds such as weight of the evidence, excessive damages, unfairness in the trial, or substantial legal errors in evidence or instructions.

🔒

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 federal court in Denver, a jury returns a verdict for Nora Patel in her negligence suit against Summit Valley Logistics. Summit Valley had moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence and, within the Rule 50(b) period, files a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, for a new trial based on excessive damages and erroneous exclusion of defense exhibits. The judge grants judgment notwithstanding the verdict and says nothing about the new-trial request.

What is the best statement of the proper procedural effect of the trial judge’s ruling?

Explanation. Rule 50(b) does not treat a grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict as an automatic denial of an alternative new-trial motion. The two motions serve different offices: judgment n.o.v. addresses legal insufficiency, while a new trial may rest on excessive damages, trial unfairness, or substantial legal error. When both motions are presented, the trial judge should decide both and indicate the grounds for the new-trial ruling. (Derived from Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan (n.d.).)