Std. of Review: Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)

At the outset, we note that a motion for JNOV shall not be granted unless “there is a complete absence of proof on a material issue or if no disputed issues of fact exist upon which reasonable minds could differ.” Bierman v. Klapheke, 967 S.W.2d 16, 18-19 (Ky.1998). We review a decision granting JNOV for clear error. Moore v. Environmental Const. Corp., 147 S.W.3d 13, 16 (Ky. 2004). We must review the evidence presented to the jury, drawing all reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict returned by the jury and that we must uphold the trial court's decision if a reasonable person could not have found as the jury did. Id. Moreover, in our determination we must bear in mind that,

In ruling on either a motion for a directed verdict or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a trial court is under a duty to consider the evidence in the strongest possible light in favor of the party opposing the motion. Furthermore, it is required to give the opposing party the advantage of every fair and reasonable inference which can be drawn from the evidence. And, it is precluded from entering either a directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. unless there is a complete absence of proof on a material issue in the action, or if no disputed issue of fact exists upon which reasonable men could differ.
Taylor v. Kennedy, 700 S.W.2d 415, 416 (Ky.App. 1985).

1126. CIVIL PROCEDURE; JNOV
CARTER (KATHY), ET AL.
VS.
COALFIELD LUMBER COMPANY, INC.
OPINION AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART AND REMANDING
CAPERTON (PRESIDING JUDGE)
THOMPSON (CONCURS) AND VANMETER (CONCURS)
2009-CA-000519-MR
TO BE PUBLISHED
MARTIN

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.