Ninth District Opinions Released on June 19, 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released two opinions on June 19, 2013. Both were appeals from the Summit County Common Pleas Court. One case was a criminal case and the other was a civil case. 

The criminal case was State v. Stull, 2013-Ohio-2521, which was an appeal from the trial court's denial of a petition for post-conviction relief. The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. The Court noted that  a trial court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. If the entry doesn't contain such findings and conclusions the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Since the trial court did not make such findings of fact and conclusions of law, the appeal was dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. 

The civil case was Jackovic v. Webb, 2013-Ohio-2520  in which Mr. and Mrs. Jackovic appealed from the trial court's denial of their motions for a directed verdict, for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and for a new trial. They also argued that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

The Jackovics argued that the trial court should have directed a verdict in their favor on the issue of whether the defendant's negligence caused medical bills for emergency medical care. The Court of Appeals agreed with this argument. They also argued that the trial court should have directed a verdict on the issue of whether the defendant's negligence caused medical bills for treatment following the day of the accident. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument stating that on that issue reasonable minds could come to different conclusions. Since it had reversed in part and affirmed in part on that assignment of error the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. 

On the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict the Court found that its resolution of the first assignment of error rendered that assignment of error moot. The motion for a new trial was based on three subsections of Civ. R. 59. On the two arguments involving Civ. R. 59 (A) (7) and (9) the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision overruling the motion. On the argument involving Civ. R. 59 (6) the appellate court found that its decision on the first assignment of error rendered that assignment moot. The Court also found that the assignment of error that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence was also moot. 

Standard to be Applied in Civil Rule 50 Motions for Directed Verdict

Trial judges are often faced with the necessity of ruling on a motion for a directed verdict at the end of a party's case. An interesting discussion of the standard that is to be used by a trial judge in ruling on such a motion is found in Heath v. Teich, 2004-Ohio-3389. Here is a quote from that decision:

Pursuant to Civ.R. 50(A)(4), a motion for directed verdict should be granted if, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512, 2002-Ohio-2842, at ¶3. The trial court is only required to discern whether there exists any evidence of substantive probative value that favors the position of the non-moving party. Id.; Civ.R. 50(A)(4). The requisite question to ask is: Was there sufficient material evidence presented at trial on this issue to create a factual question for the jury? See Malone v. Courtyard by Marriott L.P. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 440. In determining whether to direct a verdict, the trial court does not engage in a weighing of the evidence, nor does it evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 66, 67-68. Moreover, a motion for directed verdict presents a question of law and is reviewed by this court de novo. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., supra, at ¶3.

The way that I read the above is that once such a motion is made, a trial judge examines the evidence to determine whether the non-moving party has introduced evidence that, if believed by the trier of fact, would be sufficient to establish a factual issue for the jury. If the answer is "yes", then the motion is denied, and if the answer is "no", then the motion is granted.