Bliss v. DePrang
| Decision Date | 16 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 4899,No. 214,214,4899 |
| Citation | 407 P.2d 726,81 Nev. 599 |
| Parties | Elizabeth Carpenter BLISS, Appellant, v. Fercy O. DePRANG, doing business as DayNite Launder Center, and Reno Enterprises, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Nada Novakovich, Reno, for appellant.
Richard P. Wait and Roger L. Erickson, Reno, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a personal injury suit in which the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. Appellant assigns as error the denial by the court of a motion for a directed verdict and the introduction into evidence of certain photographs taken of the scene of the accident.
On April 20, 1963, about 7:30 A.M., appellant arrived at the Day-Nite Launder Center, parked her car, and went into the laundromat to do her washing. When this was completed, she proceeded back to her car, placed the laundry in the front seat and walked around the back of the automobile to get into the driver's seat.
At this point, she slipped and fell, sustaining injuries to her left arm and knee for which she claims damages for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The basis of her contention was that the respondents, owners of the parking lot and operators of the laundromat, were negligent in allowing a depression to exist in the parking lot; that the depression caused water to gather which turned to ice, that the ice caused her to fall by reason of which she sustained the aforementioned injuries.
1. At the conclusion of the evidence by both parties, appellant moved for a directed verdict, pursuant to Rule 50(a) of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence and before the case is submitted to the jury. It enables the court to determine whether there is any question of fact to be submitted to the jury, and whether any verdict other than the one directed, would be erroneous as a matter of law. 2B Barron and Holtzoff, Fed.Prac. & Procedure, Sec. 1071, at 364.
When such a motion is presented, the trial court must view the evidence and all inferences most favorably to the party against whom the motion is made. On review this court must apply the same standard. Wisconsin Liquor Co. v. Park & Tilford Distillers Corp., 267 F.2d 928 (7th Cir. 1959); 2B Barron and Holtzoff, Fed.Prac. & Procedure, Sec. 1075, at 378. The credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence, are not before the court on a motion for a directed verdict. Schnee v. Southern Pac. Co., 186 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1951); Sano v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 282 F.2d 936 (3rd Cir. 1960).
In brief, where there is testimony that is conflicting on material issues, the court should not direct a verdict. Even where the trial court would feel obliged to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence, it is powerless to direct a verdict if there is substantial evidence for the party against whom the motion is made. A directed verdict is proper only in those instances where the evidences is so overwhelming for one party that any other verdict would be contrary to the law. Greene v. Werven, 275 F.2d 134 (8th Cir. 1960).
We must resolve, therefore, whether appellant has shown that there is insufficient evidence for permitting any other finding than that respondents were negligent. If the facts are disputed or if reasonable men could draw different inferences from the facts, the question is one of fact for the jury and not one of law for the court. See Troop v. Young, 75 Nev. 434, 345 P.2d 226 (1959); Weck v. Reno Traction Co., 38 Nev. 285, 149 P. 65 (1915).
Plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cutts v. Casey
...See e.g., Stewart v. Gilmore, 5 Cir., 323 F.2d 389 (1963); United States v. Grannis, 4 Cir., 172 F.2d 507 (1949); Bliss v. DePrang, 81 Nev. 599, 407 P.2d 726 (1965). See also 5 Moore's Federal Practice, § 50.02(1); 2B Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure (Wright Ed., 1961), §......
-
Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc.
...to the law.'" M.C. Multi-Family Dev. v. Crestdale Assocs., 124 Nev. ___, ___, 193 P.3d 536, 542 (2008) (quoting Bliss v. DePrang, 81 Nev. 599, 602, 407 P.2d 726, 727-28 (1965)). Under NRCP 59(a)(1), a new trial may be granted in the event of irregularity in the jury proceedings. Thus, a cou......
-
Pedrick v. Peoria & E. R. Co.
...cases in which the evidence is so overwhelming in favor of one party that any other verdict would be contrary to law. Bliss v. DePrang, 81 Nev. 599, 407 P.2d 726. Virginia applies the first stated test-the reasonable-man test-with an additional requirement that the conclusion to be drawn mu......
-
Eikelberger v. Tolotti
...must read the record in a light most favorable to the jury verdict. Dudley v. Prima, 84 Nev. 549, 445 P.2d 31 (1968); Bliss v. DePrang, 81 Nev. 599, 407 P.2d 726 (1965). 1. The extensive litigation between the Eikelbergers and the Tolottis stems from a sublease agreement between them upon t......