60-250. Judgment as a matter of law; motion for new trial. (a) Judgment as a matter of law. (1) In general. If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:
(A) Resolve the issue against the party; and
(B) grant a motion for a judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.
(2) Motion. A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.
(3) Comparative fault actions. The court must reserve decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law by a party joined under subsection (c) of K.S.A. 60-258a, and amendments thereto, until all evidence has been presented by any party alleging the movant's fault.
(b) Renewing the motion after trial; alternative motion for a new trial. If the court does not grant a motion for a judgment as a matter of law made under subsection (a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment, or, if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by the verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged, the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under K.S.A. 60-259, and amendments thereto. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:
(1) Allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;
(2) order a new trial; or
(3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.
(c) Granting the renewed motion; conditional ruling on a motion for a new trial. (1) In general. If the court grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on any motion for a new trial by determining whether a new trial should be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed. The court must state the grounds for conditionally granting or denying the motion for a new trial.
(2) Effect of a conditional ruling. Conditionally granting the motion for a new trial does not affect the judgment's finality; if the judgment is reversed, the new trial must proceed unless the appellate court orders otherwise. If the motion for a new trial is conditionally denied, the appellee may assert error in that denial; if the judgment is reversed, the case must proceed as the appellate court orders.
(d) Time for a losing party's motion for a new trial. Any motion for a new trial under K.S.A. 60-259, and amendments thereto, by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.
(e) Denying the motion for judgment as a matter of law; reversal on appeal. If the court denies the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the prevailing party may, as appellee, assert grounds entitling it to a new trial should the appellate court conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, it may order a new trial, direct the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be granted or direct the entry of judgment.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-250; L. 1986, ch. 215, § 9; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 26; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 121; July 1.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Stay of motion for new trial or for judgment, see 60-262(b).
Harmless errors disregarded, see 60-261.
Motion for judgment on the pleadings, see 60-212(c).
Default judgment, request for, notice, see 60-255.
Dismissal of actions, see 60-241.
New trial; amendment of judgments, see 60-259.
Summary judgment, see 60-256.
Verdicts in criminal prosecutions, see 22-3421.
Appeals, see 60-2103.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Subsection (b); survey of civil procedure, Spencer A. Gard, 17 K.L.R. 739, 748 (1969).
Survey of civil procedure, Elizabeth R. Herbert, 15 W.L.J. 315, 320 (1976).
"Comparative Negligence. New Rules of Pleading and Burden of Proof," Vol. IX, Special Issue, J.K.T.L.A. 28 (1985).
"A Quantitative and Descriptive Survey of Evidence Law in the Kansas Appellate Courts," Stanley D. Davis, 37 K.L.R. 715, 718 (1989).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Motion for directed verdict condition precedent to motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict. Noll v. Schnebly, 196 Kan. 485, 486, 487, 413 P.2d 78.
2. Mentioned in holding plaintiff's admissions established contributory negligence as a matter of law. Schoof v. Byrd, 197 Kan. 38, 48, 415 P.2d 384.
3. Mentioned; motion not filed within ten days fails to terminate running of appeal. Ten Eyck v. Harp, 197 Kan. 529, 532, 533, 419 P.2d 922.
4. Plaintiff's evidence insufficient for application of res ipsa loquitur; directed verdict affirmed. Chandler v. Anchor Serum Co., 198 Kan. 571, 577, 426 P.2d 82.
5. Kansas law provides for "directed verdict," not "involuntary verdict." Pierce v. Melzer, 199 Kan. 100, 102, 427 P.2d 632.
6. Collision at intersection; contributory negligence as matter of law; motion for directed verdict sustained. Schenck v. Thompson, 201 Kan. 608, 610, 443 P.2d 298.
7. Judgment notwithstanding verdict reversed on appeal and verdict reinstated. Striplin v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 204 Kan. 324, 326, 327, 461 P.2d 825.
8. On motion for directed verdict, court must resolve all facts and inferences against movant and, if reasonable minds may differ, motion must be denied. Lord v. Jackman, 206 Kan. 22, 23, 476 P.2d 596.
9. Motion to dismiss filed at close of evidence tantamount to motion for directed verdict. Amino Brothers Co., Inc. v. Twin Caney Watershed District, 206 Kan. 68, 73, 476 P.2d 228.
10. Motion for directed verdict tantamount to demurrer to the evidence under former code. Fox v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 206 Kan. 97, 99, 476 P.2d 646.
11. Rules applicable to motion for involuntary dismissal under K.S.A. 60-241, where case is being tried to a jury, are same as those applicable to motion for directed verdict. Kirsch v. Dondlinger & Sons Construction Co., Inc., 206 Kan. 701, 704, 482 P.2d 10.
12. Motion for directed verdict cannot be entertained until all of plaintiff's evidence is presented to jury. Hodges v. Lister, 207 Kan. 260, 267, 485 P.2d 165.
13. Trial court's action setting aside verdict for plaintiff and entering judgment for defendant upheld. Fisher v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 207 Kan. 493, 494, 495, 485 P.2d 1309.
14. Subsection (b) cited; special verdicts reinstated. Sexsmith v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 209 Kan. 99, 109, 495 P.2d 930.
15. Subsection (a) distinguished from K.S.A. 60-241 (b); under latter trial court may weigh and evaluate the evidence. Armstrong v. City of Salina, 211 Kan. 333, 340, 507 P.2d 323.
16. Cited; where motion for acquittal granted, appellate court may not reinstate jury verdict of guilty. State v. Gustin, 212 Kan. 475, 480, 510 P.2d 1290.
17. No evidence to support claim based on express warranty; instructions erroneous. Franklin v. Northwest Drilling Co., Inc., 215 Kan. 304, 309, 524 P.2d 1194.
18. Allegations of jury misconduct moot where judgment entered for directed verdict. Kirby v. Golden, 215 Kan. 583, 587, 527 P.2d 962.
19. Purpose of statute considered and applied; claimed errors with regard to instructions not preserved for review; motion for directed verdict preserved. Apperson v. Security State Bank, 215 Kan. 724, 731, 732, 528 P.2d 1211.
20. Applied; murder prosecution; verbatim quoting of K.S.A. 22-3428 in instructing jury not required. State v. Hamilton, 216 Kan. 559, 534 P.2d 226.
21. Court required to resolve facts and inferences from evidence in favor of party against whom motion sought. Simpson v. Davis, 219 Kan. 584, 589, 549 P.2d 950.
22. Evidence sufficient; trial court's action improper in sustaining motion for directed verdict. Gerchberg v. Loney, 1 Kan. App. 2d 84, 85, 90, 91, 562 P.2d 664.
23. Motion for directed verdict; same consideration given at appellate as trial level. Ellis v. Sketers, 1 Kan. App. 2d 323, 328, 564 P.2d 568.
24. Construed; court's scope of review limited. Frevele v. McAloon, 222 Kan. 295, 300, 564 P.2d 508.
25. Medical malpractice action; trial court erred in directing verdict for defendant; exclusion of proffered testimony. Moore v. Francisco, 2 Kan. App. 2d 526, 583 P.2d 391.
26. Cited; instructions given jury erroneous in action based on theory of strict liability. Prentice v. Acme Machine & Supply Co., 226 Kan. 406, 407, 601 P.2d 1093.
27. Test for motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict under subsection (b) stated; instruction on equitable estoppel held prejudicial error. Coffey v. Stephans, 3 Kan. App. 2d 596, 597, 599 P.2d 310.
28. Where question is one of insurer's duty to settle case, trial court erred in directing verdict where reasonable minds could reach different conclusions from evidence. Guarantee Abstract & Title Co. v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 228 Kan. 532, 539, 618 P.2d 1195.
29. Record absent of plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict; post-verdict action by trial court improper; reversed. Roitz v. Brooks, 5 Kan. App. 2d 534, 535, 619 P.2d 1169.
30. Mentioned; failure to procure insurance; exercise care duty rule discussed and applied. Marshel Investments, Inc. v. Cohen, 6 Kan. App. 2d 672, 677, 634 P.2d 133 (1981).
31. Evidence as to causation and amount of damages in breach of construction contract held sufficient to go to jury. English Village Properties, Inc. v. Boettcher & Lieurance Constr. Co., 7 Kan. App. 2d 307, 640 P.2d 1280 (1982).
32. No error in denial of directed verdict motion where evidence as to fault conflicting and credibility of witnesses in issue. Putter v. Bowman, 7 Kan. App. 2d 323, 641 P.2d 411 (1982).
33. Judgment reversed on basis of error by trial court; standard of review in determining error stated. Dennison State Bank v. Madeira, 230 Kan. 684, 691, 640 P.2d 1235 (1982).
34. Plaintiff not a licensee even though she slipped on sidewalk when responding to a social invitation. Rouse v. Fewin, 8 Kan. App. 2d 428, 660 P.2d 81 (1983).
35. Trial court erred in sustaining motion for directed verdict since evidence indicated questions of fact upon which reasonable minds could differ. Swanston v. McConnell Air Force Base Fed'l Cred. Union, 8 Kan. App. 2d 538, 540, 661 P.2d 826 (1983).
36. Trial court did not err in denying motion for directed verdict when plaintiff's evidence clearly shows submissible case against defendant. Ettus v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 233 Kan. 555, 560, 665 P.2d 730 (1983).
37. When no evidence is presented or evidence presented is undisputed on particular issue so that reasonable minds could not differ, the issue becomes question of law. Sampson v. Hunt, 233 Kan. 572, 578, 665 P.2d 743 (1983).
38. Facts and inferences resolved in favor of party against whom ruling is sought. Bowman v. Doherty, 235 Kan. 870, 878, 686 P.2d 112 (1984).
39. Cited; premature filing of motion for rehearing in workers' compensation appeal tolls time for filing notice of appeal. Dieter v. Lawrence Paper Co., 237 Kan. 139, 144, 697 P.2d 1300 (1985).
40. Cited; 100% damages apportioned against remaining defendant after directed verdict for codefendant; propriety of verdict discussed. Tice v. Ebeling, 238 Kan. 704, 705, 715 P.2d 397 (1986).
41. Rule on determining motion for directed verdict also applicable to appellate review and motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict. Turner v. Halliburton Co., 240 Kan. 1, 6, 7, 722 P.2d 1106 (1986).
42. Cited; sufficiency of evidence to establish timing and/or improper installation of temporary traffic signals as probable cause examined. Baker v. City of Garden City, 240 Kan. 554, 731 P.2d 278 (1987).
43. Trial court erred in granting motion, notwithstanding verdict by finding as a matter of law that defendant store did not violate duty to keep premises reasonably safe. Chambers v. Skaggs Companies, Inc., 11 Kan. App. 2d 684, 687, 732 P.2d 801 (1987).
44. Defendant moving for judgment following plaintiff's case in nonjury trial seeks involuntary dismissal (K.S.A. 60-241) rather than directed verdict. Nutt v. Knutson, 13 Kan. App. 2d 169, 170, 766 P.2d 823 (1988).
45. Involuntary dismissal (K.S.A. 60-241) rather than directed verdict in disposing of contract under statute of frauds (K.S.A. 33-106) noted. Nutt v. Knutson, 245 Kan. 162, 163, 776 P.2d 475 (1989).
46. Question of directed verdict on liability examined where defendant ran stop sign. St. Clair v. Denny, 245 Kan. 414, 416, 781 P.2d 1043 (1989).
47. Noted by dissent where K.S.A. 60-203 and 60-206 compared concerning extension of time for service and application of same. Read v. Miller, 247 Kan. 557, 565, 802 P.2d 528 (1990).
48. Test for determining if motion for directed verdict should be granted as same for motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict noted. Brown v. United Methodist Homes for the Aged, 249 Kan. 124, 127, 815 P.2d 72 (1991).
49. Trial court taking motion for directed verdict under advisement in tort of outrage case deemed to have submitted claim to jury. Taiwo v. Vu, 249 Kan. 585, 591, 822 P.2d 1024 (1991).
50. Determination by trial court when ruling on motion for directed verdict; appellate review. Enlow v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 249 Kan. 732, 737, 822 P.2d 617 (1991).
51. When directed verdict motion not ruled on or is denied, action deemed submitted to jury subject to later rulings. Reyna v. General Group of Companies, 15 Kan. App. 2d 591, 598, 814 P.2d 961 (1991).
52. Rules for directed verdict discussed; no error in trial court's entry of directed verdict. Simon v. National Farmers Organization, Inc., 250 Kan. 676, 683, 829 P.2d 884 (1992).
53. Directed verdict for landlord in termination of oral farm lease pursuant to K.S.A. 58-2506 examined. Mendenhall v. Roberts, 17 Kan. App. 2d 34, 45, 831 P.2d 568 (1992).
54. Court's responsibility in ruling on motion for directed verdict examined. Hurlbut v. Conoco, Inc. 253 Kan. 515, 524, 856 P.2d 1313 (1993).
55. Cited in holding K.S.A. 60-259(f) applicable when motion for rehearing treated as motion to alter or amend. In re Marriage of Hansen, 18 Kan. App. 2d 712, 714, 858 P.2d 1240 (1993).
56. Evidence of intoxicated driver's conduct sufficient to preclude directed verdict. Reeves v. Carlson, 266 Kan. 310, 313, 969 P.2d 252 (1998).
57. Trial court's denial of directed verdict approved as policy under comparative negligence is to resolve issues in one proceeding. Gust v. Jones, 162 F.3d 587 (1998).
58. Motion for directed verdict granted; fraud claim dismissed despite general verdict. Calver v. Hinson, 267 Kan. 369, 374, 982 P.2d 970 (1999).
59. No error in denying motion for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Wilson v. Knight, 26 Kan. App. 2d 226, 232, 982 P.2d 400 (1999).
60. Standard of review for directed verdict same as motion for judgment. Stover v. Superior Industries Int'l, Inc., 29 Kan. App. 2d 235, 29 P.3d 967 (2000).
61. Judgment as matter of law unavailable where reasonable minds might differ on defendant's liability. Nold v. Binyon, 272 Kan. 87, 31 P.3d 274 (2001).
62. Trial court cannot grant judgment as matter of law at close of plaintiff's case. Schreiber v. Beach, 33 Kan. App. 2d 58, 97 P.3d 525 (2004).
63. When considering motion for directed verdict, court is to resolve all facts and inferences from evidence in favor of party against whom ruling is sought. Burch v. Burch, 34 Kan. App. 2d 506, 120 P.3d 799 (2005).
64. Cited; time limit for filing appeal under probate code is tolled by filing postjudgment motion pursuant to K.S.A. 60-2103(a). In re Guardianship of Sokol, 40 Kan. App. 2d 57, 64, 189 P.3d 526 (2008).
65. Cited; motion for directed verdict denied; standard for review discussed and applied. LaShure v. Felts, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1001, 1011, 197 P.3d 885 (2008).
66. Cited; burden of proof in breach of fiduciary duties action discussed and applied. Becker v. Knoll, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1049, 1054, 199 P.3d 786 (2008).
67. Appellate court does not reach the question of whether district judge can recall jurors sua sponte. Williams v. Lawton, 288 Kan. 768, 207 P.3d 1027 (2009).
68. Judgment as a matter of law discussed; no inferences in favor of nonmoving party required. Lewis v. R & K Ranch, 41 Kan. App. 2d 588, 204 P.3d 642 (2009).
69. Case remanded for a new trial; fact-finder must make the ultimate determination of issues. National Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Surety Co., 290 Kan. 247, 225 P.3d 707 (2010).
70. District court and appellate court apply a similar analysis in reviewing the grant or denial of a motion. City of Neodesha v. BP Corporation, 295 Kan. 298, 287 P.3d 214 (2012).
|
|