motion for directed verdict

Challenging Standard for Granting Directed Verdict

Posted by David Adelstein on June 25, 2016
Evidence, Trial Perspectives / Comments Off on Challenging Standard for Granting Directed Verdict


If there is a jury trial, there will be a motion for directed verdict. But, the standard for granting a motion for directed verdict is challenging; if the directed verdict is granted, an appeal will be filed arguing the trial court’s error in granting the directed verdict.

James v. City of Tampa, 2016 WL 3201221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) was a personal injury action. The issue at trial was whether the plaintiff’s injuries from a car accident constituted a permanent injury (as this issue impacted damages to be awarded to the injured plaintiff). At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for directed verdict on the issue of whether the plaintiff suffered a permanent injury, meaning the directed verdict prevented the jury from considering whether the injuries were permanent, and if so, damages associated with the permanent injuries. Naturally, the plaintiff appealed.

Regarding the challenging burden in granting a motion for directed verdict:

A motion for directed verdict should be granted only where no view of the evidence, or inferenced made therefrom, could support a verdict for the nonmoving party. In considering a motion for directed verdict, the court must evaluate the testimony in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and every reasonable inference deduced from the evidence must be indulged in favor of the nonmoving party. In there are conflicts in the evidence or different or reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, the issue is factual and should be submitted to the jury. The standard of review on appeal of the trial court’s ruling on a defendant’s motion for directed verdict is the same test used by the trial court in ruling on the motion.

James, supra, quoting Sims v. Cristinzio, 898 So.2d 1004, 1005-06 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Here, the appellate court had no choice but to reverse the directed verdict remanding the matter back to the trial court for a new trial as to damages. The plaintiff put on expert testimony regarding the issue of permanent damages and the defendant cross-examined the plaintiff and presented its own rebutting expert. Thus, the issue of permanency was really a question for the jury as the directed verdict would only be appropriate where “the evidence of injury and causation is such that no reasonable inference could support a jury verdict for the plaintiff…on the permanency issue.” James, supra.


Please contact David Adelstein at or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Tags: , , , ,

Proving Your Case Through Circumstantial Evidence

Posted by David Adelstein on May 15, 2016
Evidence / Comments Off on Proving Your Case Through Circumstantial Evidence


The plaintiff puts on her case through circumstantial evidence so that inferences can be drawn from that evidence.  The defendant moves for a directed verdict after the plaintiff put on her case through circumstantial evidence. The trial court denies the motion and the jury enters a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of the motion for a directed verdict. The standard of review for the denial of a motion for directed verdict is de novo.   Broward Executive Builders, Inc. v. Zota, 41 Fla.L.Weekly D1126a (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

In Broward Executive Builders, the plaintiff, a painter, fell and seriously injured herself. No one witnessed the fall and the plaintiff was unable to testify. The plaintiff claimed that defendant general contractor caused her fall by failing to install required guardrails that would have prevented the fall.

[A plaintiff] must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a substantial factor in bringing about the result. A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.

Broward Executive Builders, supra, quoting Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P’ship, 157 So.3d 273, 277 (Fla. 2015).

Without any direct evidence relating to the cause of the plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff needed to establish the defendant general contractor’s liability through circumstantial evidence, predominantly through an expert accident reconstructionist. While the plaintiff may prove facts in a negligence case through circumstantial evidence, an inference drawn from the circumstantial evidence “must be the only reasonable inference that can be formed from that evidence for the plaintiff to build further inferences upon it.” Broward Executive Builders, supra.

While it certainly could be inferred from the circumstantial evidence that the plaintiff fell and sustained injuries, it could not be reasonably inferred that the plaintiff fell from a location where the guardrails would have prevented her fall. The circumstantial evidence did not exclude other reasonable inferences about the location where the plaintiff fell, what the plaintiff was doing when she fell, or what caused the fall. In other words, it could not be solely inferred that the defendant’s failure to install the required guardrails caused the plaintiff’s injuries—there were other reasonable possibilities relating to the fall that could be inferred.

[B]ecause there is no evidence of how she fell or where exactly she fell from, it would be complete speculation and conjecture for any trier of fact to conclude that the lack of guardrails contributed to causing her injuries. The burden of proof rested upon appellees [plaintiff] to prove appellant’s [defendant] negligence. Where there is evidence that the harm could have occurred even in the absence of the appellant’s conduct, proof of causation cannot be based on mere speculation, conjecture, or inferences drawn from other non-exclusive inferences.

Broward Executive Builders, supra (reversing the trial court and remanding for judgment to be entered in favor of defendant general contractor). 

Please contact David Adelstein at or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

Tags: , , , , ,

Contact Me Now

Prove YOUR Case!


David Adelstein ♦

(954) 361-4720 ♦