United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Civil Procedure
Civil ProcedureJudgment notwithstanding the verdictSufficiency of the evidenceDiversity jurisdictionRule 50(b)judgment notwithstanding the verdictJNOVdirected verdict standard
Facts
Plaintiff slipped and fell on a marble terrace at Pennsylvania Station during a heavy snowstorm at about 7:20 a.m. on February 16, 1958. He claimed he slipped on a dirty gray, rugged patch of ice near the first pillar of the terrace and argued that the condition had persisted from earlier snowfalls. At trial, plaintiff conceded that if the ice or snow came from the storm then in progress, defendant could not be held liable under the theory he chose to present. Weather Bureau records showed continuous snowfall beginning the previous afternoon, strong winds blowing snow onto the terrace, and no measurable snow or ice on the ground in the days immediately before that storm.
Issue
Whether the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find that plaintiff fell on snow or ice remaining from earlier February snowfalls, rather than from the severe storm in progress, so that the jury's negligence verdict could stand. Also, whether judgment notwithstanding the verdict was proper under the applicable sufficiency standard.
Rule
On a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the court must view the evidence and all inferences most favorably to the nonmoving party. But evidence is not substantial, and inferences are not reasonable, if they are contrary to proven physical facts or undisputed documentary evidence; the case must be withdrawn from the jury when no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party.
🔒
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 a diversity negligence trial in federal court in Chicago, Lena Morris claimed she slipped on an old sheet of ice in the entry plaza of Lakeshore Market Hall. At trial, Lena expressly limited her theory to ice left over from a storm four days earlier. Uncontested municipal weather logs showed temperatures above freezing for three straight days, no snow or ice accumulation on the ground during that period, and a freezing rain event beginning an hour before her fall.
After the jury returns a verdict for Lena, the market moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. How should the court rule?
Explanation. The governing rule is that on Rule 50(b), the court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. But evidence is not substantial, and inferences are not reasonable, when they conflict with proven physical facts or undisputed documentary evidence. Because Lena confined her case to preexisting ice and the official weather records overwhelmingly negate that theory, no reasonable jury could find for her. The court may therefore enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict. (Derived from O'Connor v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. (n.d.).)