Legal Definitions - judgment notwithstanding the verdict

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a legal ruling made by a judge that overturns a jury's decision. This occurs when the judge determines that no reasonable jury, based on the evidence presented during the trial, could have logically reached the verdict it did. In essence, the judge concludes that the evidence overwhelmingly supports one side, making the jury's verdict legally insupportable.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Overwhelming Evidence in a Business Dispute

  Imagine a lawsuit where a software company, "InnovateTech," sues a former employee for stealing trade secrets. InnovateTech presents dozens of emails, server logs, and witness testimonies clearly showing the employee downloaded proprietary code and shared it with a competitor. The former employee offers only vague denials and no credible evidence to counter InnovateTech's claims. Despite this overwhelming evidence, the jury, perhaps swayed by sympathy for the individual, finds in favor of the former employee.

  InnovateTech's legal team would then file a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judge, reviewing the trial record, would likely agree that no reasonable jury could have concluded the employee was innocent, given the undisputed and extensive evidence presented. The judge would then issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruling in favor of InnovateTech and setting aside the jury's decision.

• Example 2: Contractual Obligations Ignored

  Consider a case where "BuildRight Construction" sued "SupplyCo" for breach of contract. The written contract explicitly stated that SupplyCo must deliver specific building materials by June 1st, or face a penalty of $5,000 per day of delay. SupplyCo delivered the materials three weeks late, and BuildRight Construction sued for the accumulated penalties. SupplyCo argued that the delivery date was merely a "target" and not a strict deadline, despite the clear language in the signed contract.

  The jury, for reasons unknown, found that SupplyCo was not liable for any penalties, effectively disregarding the unambiguous terms of the contract. BuildRight Construction's attorney would then move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judge, examining the clear contractual language and the evidence of late delivery, would determine that the jury's verdict directly contradicted the established law of contracts and the undisputed facts. The judge would issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, enforcing the penalty clause against SupplyCo.

• Example 3: Lack of Causation in a Personal Injury Case

  Suppose a pedestrian, Ms. Evans, sues a driver, Mr. Davis, for injuries she claims to have sustained when Mr. Davis's car lightly bumped her while she was crossing the street. Ms. Evans presents evidence that Mr. Davis was distracted and that she experienced pain after the incident. However, she fails to provide any medical expert testimony or other objective evidence to prove that the minor bump from Mr. Davis's car actually *caused* her specific, severe back injuries, which could have pre-existed or resulted from other factors. Mr. Davis's defense highlights this lack of causal link.

  Despite the absence of evidence directly linking the bump to the severe injuries, the jury, perhaps feeling sympathetic towards Ms. Evans, awards her a substantial sum for damages. Mr. Davis's attorney would then file a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The judge, reviewing the trial record, would find that while Mr. Davis might have been negligent, there was a complete failure by Ms. Evans to present evidence proving that his negligence *caused* the specific injuries for which the jury awarded damages. The judge would conclude that no reasonable jury could have found causation based on the evidence presented and would issue a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, setting aside the jury's award.