Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co.

• Decision Date: 27 January 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-182,BRECKENRIDGE-REMY,81-182
• Citation: 23 O.O.3d 115,69 Ohio St.2d 66,430 N.E.2d 935
• Parties: , 23 O.O.3d 115 RUTA et al., Appellants, v.CO. et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 66

69 Ohio St.2d 66

430 N.E.2d 935, 23 O.O.3d 115

RUTA et al., Appellants, v. BRECKENRIDGE-REMY CO. et al., Appellees.

No. 81-182.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Jan. 27, 1982.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A motion for a directed verdict does not present a question of fact or raise factual issues, but instead presents a question of law, even though in deciding such a motion it is necessary to review and consider the evidence. (Paragraph three of the syllabus in O'Day v. Webb, 29 Ohio St.2d 215, 280 N.E.2d 896, and in Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82, 262 N.E.2d 685, approved and followed.)

2. The reversal by the Court of Appeals, with only two judges concurring, of a judgment resulting from a trial by jury, on the basis that the trial court should have granted a directed verdict, does not violate Section 3(B)(3), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution.

O. George Ruta and Carmelo Ruta (plaintiffs-appellants herein) and Dieter Decker operated four restaurants; they borrowed money from Capital National Bank, pledging equipment in one restaurant as security for the loan. They later dissolved their business and divided its assets, with plaintiffs receiving two restaurants and Decker two (including the one with the pledged equipment), and with Decker agreeing to assume the indebtedness owed the bank.

Decker then contracted with Thomas C. Forster and Richard E. Remke (defendants-appellees) to purchase their restaurant supply business, Breckenridge-Remy Co. (defendant-appellee). Decker had become vice-president and general manager in control of the company's daily operations just before this time in anticipation of his becoming the new owner. Decker notified the bank by letter that Breckenridge-Remy was assuming responsibility for paying the loan. When Decker sold the security for the loan without the bank's consent and disappeared, the bank looked to plaintiffs for payment. Plaintiffs proceeded against defendants, asserting basically that they were negligent in hiring and retaining Decker and in permitting him to become vice-president and general manager of the company, and that he used this position to adversely affect plaintiffs' business interests.

At trial, the court overruled defendants' motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the plaintiffs' evidence. Defendants then rested without presenting evidence. The jury returned a verdict of $20,000 for plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeals reversed, with two judges concurring, holding that the trial court should have granted defendants' motion for a directed verdict, and rendered judgment for defendants. ¹

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., and Dennis E. Murray, Sandusky, for appellants.

Flynn, Py & Kruse Co., L.P.A., and Charles W. Waterfield, Sandusky, for appellees.

NORRIS, Judge.

The sole issue presented by appellants' first proposition of law is whether, in reversing a trial court on the basis that the court should have granted a motion for a directed verdict, a court of appeals engages in weighing evidence and therefore is bound by the provision of Section 3(B)(3), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits reversal on the weight of the evidence of judgments resulting from a trial by jury, except by concurrence of all three judges hearing the case. Stated another way, the question is whether a motion for a directed verdict presents only a question of law, or whether it involves weighing evidence. If the former be the case, then the concurrence of only a majority of the panel was sufficient to reverse the trial court and enter the directed verdict; if the latter, then the Court of Appeals erred in this case.

We believe appellants misapprehend the duty of a court when confronted with a motion for a directed verdict. Determining whether "reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted" ² does not involve any weighing of the evidence, nor is the court concerned with the credibility of witnesses. This is in contrast to the court's duty when considering a motion for a new trial proferred on the basis that the "judgment is not sustained by the weight of the evidence." ³ Rohde v. Farmer (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 82, 262 N.E.2d 685.

Simply because resolution of a question of law involves a consideration of the evidence does not mean that the question of law is converted into a question of fact or that a factual issue is raised. This important distinction has been pointed out previously by this court:

"A motion for directed verdict or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict does not present factual issues, but a question of law, even though in deciding such a motion, it is necessary to review and consider the evidence." O'Day v. Webb (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 215, 280 N.E.2d 896, paragraph three of the syllabus.

When a motion for a directed verdict is entered, what is being tested is a question of law; that is, the legal sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury. This does not involve weighing the evidence or trying the credibility of witnesses; it is in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence and assumes the truth of the evidence supporting the facts essential to the claim of the party against whom the motion is directed, and gives to that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences from that evidence. The evidence is granted its most favorable interpretation and is considered as establishing every material fact it tends to prove. The "reasonable minds" test of Civ.R. 50(A)(4) calls upon the court only to determine whether there exists any evidence of substantial probative value in support of that party's claim. See Hamden Lodge v. Ohio Fuel Gas Co. (1934), 127 Ohio St. 469, 189 N.E. 246. Weighing evidence connotes finding facts from the evidence submitted; no such role is undertaken by the court in considering a motion for a directed verdict. A motion for a directed verdict raises a question of law because it examines the materiality of the evidence, as opposed to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. To hold that in considering a motion for directed verdict a court may weigh the evidence, would be to hold that a judge may usurp the function of the jury. Section 5, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.

Our determination that a motion for directed verdict presents a question of law,...