Tort Law

Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict is a page within Virginia Tort Case Law which is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict and the related topic of personal injury. For more information on the topic of judgment notwithstanding verdict see the pages on Wikipedia.

Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict-Cases

2005 Jenkins v. Pyles, 269 Va. 383, 611 S.E.2d 404.

Auto accident case where a defendant’s vehicle was 14-feet wide on a 12-foot road and therefore, it extended into plaintiff’s lane. Plaintiff claimed he did not see the vehicle extending into his lane because of vehicle that was in front of him as he approached defendant’s vehicle. Jury returned verdict for plaintiff. Trial court set verdict aside on the grounds of contributory negligence. Trial court is reversed in this case on the grounds that a jury issue was presented. Recipient of jury verdict is entitled to the benefit of all substantial conflicts in the evidence as well as reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. In this case, the question of contributory negligence was properly submitted to the jury.

1999 Allstate Ins. Co. v. White, 257 Va. 73, 510 S.E.2d 461.

Plaintiff was passenger in truck that left road causing severe injuries to plaintiff. There was evidence of alcohol consumption by plaintiff which was objected to at trial but objection was not preserved on appeal. Plaintiff testified that it looked like approaching Doe vehicle was on his side of the road. There was no impact between the vehicles nor was there any skid marks or debris identifying location of Doe vehicle. As such, there was evidence in record to support jury verdict in favor of John Doe either because there was no John Doe vehicle or because plaintiff failed to establish that John Doe was negligent.

1992 Rogers v. Marrow, 243 Va. 162, 413 S.E.2d 344.

Jury verdict for defendant in this medical malpractice case should not have been set aside by trial court. Burden of proof is on plaintiff to prove standard of care, deviation, proximate cause and damages. Even in absence of defense evidence to contrary, jury could have found simply that plaintiff failed to meet burden of proof.

1986 Fobbs v. Webb Bldg. Ltd. P’ship, 232 Va. 227, 349 S.E.2d 355.

Judgment notwithstanding verdict only proper when verdict is plainly wrong or without credible evidence to support it. On appeal, such verdict is not entitled to same weight as one approved by Court. If any credible evidence supports verdict, Supreme Court must reinstate it.

1983 Graves v. National Cellulose Corp., 226 Va. 164, 306 S.E.2d 898.

In ruling on motion to set aside verdict, trial court must consider all of evidence that jury considered.

1981 Sampson v. Sampson, 221 Va. 896, 275 S.E.2d 597.

Where jury verdict is improper, trial court may (1) grant new trial as to damages; (2) grant remittitur; (3) grant new trial on all issues.

1980 Coleman v. Blankenship Oil Corp., 221 Va. 124, 267 S.E.2d 143.

Jury verdict may be set aside only if plainly wrong and without credible evidence to support it.

1979 Lane v. Scott, 220 Va. 578, 260 S.E.2d 238.

Trial court may enter judgment notwithstanding verdict when verdict is without credible evidence to support it.

1979 J & E Express v. Hancock Co., 220 Va. 57, 255 S.E.2d 481.

Jury verdict should not be upset unless only one conclusion can be drawn from evidence.

1967 Tyree v. Lariew, 208 Va. 382, 158 S.E.2d 140.

Jury verdict supported by credible evidence should not be upset.

1953 Patterson v. Anderson, 194 Va. 557, 74 S.E.2d 195.

For judgment notwithstanding verdict on ground of fraud, complaining party must show that testimony at first trial was false and that fact of its falsity could not have been discovered by exercise of proper diligence.

1952 Burrell v. Burrell, 193 Va. 594, 70 S.E.2d 316.

Plaintiff’s minor decedent darted out in front of defendant’s truck, was struck and killed. Court set aside verdict for defendant, holding defendant was guilty of negligence as matter of law. Since evidence was in substantial conflict and reasonable men may have differed as to how accident happened, verdict of jury was conclusive.