Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad

Supreme Court of Illinois · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDirected VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdictdirected verdictjudgment n.o.v.JNOVsufficiency of the evidencejury question

Facts

Plaintiffs were injured when their car collided with defendant's train at a railroad crossing in Pekin. The only negligence theory submitted to the jury was that defendant allowed its train to pass through the crossing without activating the red flasher warning signals. Plaintiffs' testimony that the flashers were not working was uncertain or weakened by contradictions and by their failure to notice other plainly observable facts, while two disinterested witnesses and several railroad employees testified that the flashers were operating. Defendant's signal maintainer also testified that the flasher lights were working when tested before and after the accident.

Issue

What standard should Illinois courts use in deciding whether to direct a verdict or enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict? Under that standard, should defendant railroad have received a directed verdict because the evidence that the crossing flashers were not operating was insufficient to support plaintiffs' verdicts?

Rule

Verdicts ought to be directed and judgments n.o.v. entered only in those cases in which all of the evidence, viewed in its aspect most favorable to the opponent, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could ever stand.

🔒

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 negligence trial in Springfield, Illinois, Nora Benton claims a delivery van ran a red light and hit her car. Her only proof on that point is her own testimony that she "thinks" the light was red for the van, while three uninvolved pedestrians and a traffic-camera technician testify consistently that the light was green for the van and the camera system showed no malfunction.

At the close of all the evidence, the van company moves for a directed verdict. What is the best ruling?

Explanation. The governing rule is that verdicts should be directed, and judgments n.o.v. entered, only when all of the evidence, viewed in its aspect most favorable to the opponent of the motion, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict based on that evidence could ever stand. The mere existence of slight or equivocal evidence for the nonmovant does not automatically require jury submission. (Derived from Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad (n.d.).)