Legal Definitions - judgment non obstante veredicto

The term Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto (often shortened to JNOV) is a Latin phrase that translates to "judgment notwithstanding the verdict."

This legal action occurs after a jury has delivered its verdict in a trial. One of the parties, typically the one who lost the jury's decision, asks the judge to overturn that verdict and enter a judgment in their favor instead. A judge will only grant a judgment non obstante veredicto if they determine that, based on the evidence presented during the trial, no reasonable jury could have legally reached the verdict that was given. This means the judge believes there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusion, or that the law clearly dictates a different outcome, regardless of what the jury decided. It is a powerful and rarely granted motion, as judges generally respect the jury's role as fact-finder.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Medical Malpractice Claim

  Imagine a patient sues a doctor for medical malpractice, claiming the doctor's negligence led to an injury. The jury, perhaps sympathetic to the patient's suffering, finds the doctor liable and awards damages. However, the doctor's legal team files a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The judge reviews all the expert testimony and medical records presented during the trial. If the judge concludes that, even accepting all the patient's evidence as true, there was no legally sufficient expert testimony to establish that the doctor deviated from the accepted standard of care, the judge might overturn the jury's verdict. The judge would rule in favor of the doctor, determining that no reasonable jury could have found malpractice based on the legal requirements for such a claim.

• Example 2: Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

  Consider a case where a musician sues another artist, alleging copyright infringement because a portion of their song was used without permission. The jury hears the music and finds that infringement occurred. The defendant artist then moves for a judgment non obstante veredicto. The judge examines the legal standards for copyright infringement, which require proving both ownership of a valid copyright and unauthorized copying of protected elements. If the judge determines that, as a matter of law, the portion of the song allegedly copied was not an original, protectable element under copyright law (e.g., it was a common, unoriginal musical phrase), the judge could set aside the jury's verdict. The judge would then enter judgment for the defendant, concluding that the jury's finding of infringement was legally unsustainable.

• Example 3: Premises Liability Case

  In a premises liability lawsuit, a shopper sues a store after slipping and falling on a wet floor. The jury finds the store negligent and awards compensation. The store's lawyers then file a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The judge reviews the evidence, including testimony about how long the spill was present and whether the store had reasonable notice of the hazard. If the judge determines that, even viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the shopper, there was no legally sufficient evidence presented to show that the store knew or should have known about the spill in time to clean it up, the judge could overturn the jury's verdict. The judge would rule in favor of the store, concluding that the shopper failed to meet the legal burden of proving the store's negligence.