Stark v. Henneman
| Decision Date | 01 May 1968 |
| Parties | Don STARK, Appellant, v. L. A. HENNEMAN and John R. Wetzel, dba Eastport Motors, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
John Toran, Jr., Portland, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.
Irvin D. Smith, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Before PERRY, C.J., and SLOAN, GOODWIN, HOLMAN and LUSK, JJ.
This is an action to recover damages for conversion of an automobile. Plaintiff had a verdict for compensatory and punitive damages. Thereafter the defendants moved for judgment n.o.v. with regard only to the verdict for punitive damages. The court allowed the motion and denied an alternative motion for a new trial, also limited to the question of punitive damages.
Owing to the state of the record we do not reach the question whether the evidence is sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages.
Although the motion of the defendant for judgment n.o.v. states as ground therefor 'that a motion for a directed verdict regarding punitive damages made by the Defendants should have been granted' the record discloses no such motion. At the close of plaintiff's case defendants moved the court to take from the jury's consideration the issue of punitive damages. The court denied the motion, saying: '(C)ounsel, in the event judgment for punitive damages is returned, might want to move for a judgment n.o.v., at which time I would consider the evidence further.' At the conclusion of all the evidence counsel for defendants submitted a motion with regard to the amount of compensatory damages proven, but nothing whatever was said about punitive damages.
The n.o.v. statute, ORS 18.140, provides in part that 'when a motion for directed verdict which should have been granted has been refused and a verdict is rendered against the applicant, the court may, on motion, render a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or set aside any judgment which may have been entered and render another judgment, as the case may require.' The refusal of a motion for a directed verdict is a condition precedent to the exercise of the court's power to render a judgment n.o.v.: German v. Kienow's Food Stores, Or., 425 P.2d 523; Thompson & Georgeson, Inc. v. Ward, 240 Or. 429, 400 P.2d 557; Merritt v. SIAC, 235 Or. 121, 384 P.2d 140; Carey v. Leonard, 235 Or. 107, 383 P.2d 1011. It was, therefore, error for the trial court to grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacCrone v. Edwards Center, Inc.
...directed verdict must be made before the moving party may move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. ORCP 63A; Stark v. Henneman, 250 Or. 34, 36, 440 P.2d 364 (1968). The grounds asserted in the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict must previously have been raised in a moti......
-
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.
...verdict or its equivalent is a "condition precedent to the exercise of the court's power to render a judgment n.o.v." Stark v. Henneman, 250 Or. 34, 36, 440 P.2d 364 (1968); Owens v. Haug, 61 Or.App. 513, 516 n. 3, 658 P.2d 523, rev. den. 294 Or. 792, 662 P.2d 728 (1983); Huston v. Trans-Ma......
-
Crooks v. Pay Less Drug Stores Northwest, Inc., 76-6677
...the defendant's motions amounted to a motion for directed verdict and for judgment nov but treated them as such. Stark v. Henneman, 250 Or. 34, 440 P.2d 364 (1968), was another conversion case in which plaintiff sought punitive damages. At the close of plaintiff's case, defendant moved the ......
-
Ailes v. Portland Meadows, Inc.
...799 P.2d 203. In considering plaintiff's "waiver" argument, the Court of Appeals relied on this court's decision in Stark v. Henneman, 250 Or. 34, 36, 440 P.2d 364 (1968). Stark held that a motion for directed verdict is a "condition precedent to the exercise of the court's power to render ......