Legal Definitions - JMOL

JMOL stands for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

A Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) is a decision made by a judge during a jury trial to rule in favor of one party before the jury has a chance to deliberate and reach a verdict. This occurs when the judge determines that, based on the evidence presented, no reasonable jury could legally find in favor of the other party. In essence, even if a jury were to believe all the evidence presented by one side, that evidence is still legally insufficient to support their claim or defense.

The judge is not weighing the credibility of witnesses or deciding which facts are true; instead, the judge is assessing whether the evidence, even when viewed in the most favorable light for the non-moving party, meets the minimum legal requirements to sustain a claim or defense. If it doesn't, the judge issues a JMOL, effectively ending the trial and preventing the case from going to the jury.

• Example 1: Insufficient Evidence for a Key Element

  Imagine a plaintiff sues a construction company for breach of contract, claiming the company failed to build a house according to specifications. During the trial, the plaintiff presents evidence of the contract and the company's work, but fails to introduce any evidence whatsoever that the company's work deviated from the contract specifications or caused any damages. After the plaintiff rests their case, the construction company's attorney could move for a JMOL. The judge might grant it because, even if the jury believed everything the plaintiff said about the contract and the work performed, there's no legal basis (no evidence of breach or damages) for them to find in the plaintiff's favor.

• Example 2: Legally Unsound Defense

  Consider a case where a pedestrian sues a driver for negligence after being hit by a car. The driver's defense is that they were "too distracted by a beautiful sunset" to see the pedestrian, and they present evidence only to support this claim. After both sides have presented their evidence, the pedestrian's attorney could move for a JMOL regarding the driver's liability. A judge would likely grant this because, as a matter of law, being distracted by a sunset does not excuse negligent driving; it actually *is* negligence. No reasonable jury could legally conclude that such a distraction absolves the driver of responsibility, even if they believed the driver was genuinely distracted.

• Example 3: Lack of Causation in a Product Liability Case

  Suppose a plaintiff sues a pharmaceutical company, claiming a new drug caused them a severe illness. The plaintiff presents expert testimony about their illness and their use of the drug. However, their experts fail to provide any scientific evidence or logical connection (causation) linking the drug to the specific illness, only that the illness appeared after they started taking the drug. After all evidence has been presented, the pharmaceutical company could move for a JMOL. The judge might grant it because, without evidence of causation, a fundamental legal element of a product liability claim is missing. Even if a jury believed the plaintiff took the drug and became ill, they would have no legal basis to conclude the drug *caused* the illness.