Rodriguez v. Williams, No. 10338

• Court: Supreme Court of Arizona
• Writing for the Court: UDALL; HAYS, V.C.J., and CAMERON
• Citation: 489 P.2d 268,107 Ariz. 458
• Parties: Jesus RODRIGUEZ and Anita Rodriguez, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Donald Milo WILLIAMS et al., Appellees.
• Docket Number: No. 10338
• Decision Date: 05 October 1971

Page 268

489 P.2d 268 107 Ariz. 458 Jesus RODRIGUEZ and Anita Rodriguez, husband and wife, Appellants,
v.
Donald Milo WILLIAMS et al., Appellees. No. 10338. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division. Oct. 5, 1971.

[107 Ariz. 459]

Page 269

Charles Christakis, and Estrada & Estrada by Charles Christakis, Phoenix, for appellants.

Renaud, Cook, Miller & Cordova by J. Gordon Cook, and James M. Videan, Phoenix, for appellees.

UDALL, Justice.

Jesus Rodriguez and his wife Anita brought suit in the Maricopa County Superior Court to recover damages for injuries sustained when a Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. tractor-trailer, driven by defendant Donald Milo Williams, struck the rear end of the Rodriguez vehicle. Trial on the merits resulted in a jury verdict for defendants; and from the judgment entered thereo, plaintiffs have appealed.

At the time of the accident, Jesus Rodriguez, driver of the Rodriguez vehicle, his wife and two guests were on their way [107 Ariz. 460]

Page 270

home to California. The accident occurred on U.S. Route 66, approximately five miles east of Holbrook, after the Rodriguez vehicle had slowed to a near stop on the highway itself while its driver was attempting to pull the vehicle off the highway and into a motel entranceway. Testimony elicited during trial indicated that it was dark at the time of the accident and the road was icy and slick. The accident was reported shortly thereafter, and was investigated by Officer Varner of the Arizona State Highway Patrol.

On appeal, plaintiffs have asserted the following arguments in their quest for reversal:

(1) 'The Trial Court Erred in Failing to Direct a Verdict for Plaintiffs' and 'in Refusing to Grant Plaintiffs a New Trial'.

Although plaintiffs contend on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in their favor, it appears, from the arguments and authorities advanced in support thereof, that plaintiffs were actually moving for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Rule 50(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., and for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59, Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S.

Rule 50(b) provides that a party 'who has moved for a directed verdict' may, not later than 10 days after entry of judgment, move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict may not be entertained unless a motion for directed verdict was made at the close of all the evidence, prior to submission of the case to the jury, LaBonne v. First National Bank of Arizona, 75 Ariz. 184, 254 P.2d 435 (1953); Loya v. Fong, 1 Ariz.App. 482, 404 P.2d 826 (1965), since it is merely a renewal of the motion for directed verdict and is designed to permit the trial judge, after more mature deliberation, to revise his ruling in denying the movant's motion for directed verdict. In Re Schade's Estate, 87 Ariz. 341, 351 P.2d 173 (1960); Glowacki v. A. J. Bayless Markets, 76 Ariz. 295, 263 P.2d 799 (1953). Plaintiffs made no motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. They, therefore, cannot now be heard to complain. The trial court had no alternative but to deny plaintiffs' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Relative to plaintiffs' motion for new trial, we need only reiterate that the grant or denial of such motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and, barring a manifest abuse of that discretion, the lower court's...