Legal Definitions - non obstante veredicto

The Latin phrase non obstante veredicto (often abbreviated as n.o.v. or NOV) translates to "notwithstanding the verdict."

This legal term refers to a situation where a judge issues a judgment that overturns or disregards a jury's verdict. This occurs when the judge determines that, based on the evidence presented during the trial, no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict that was delivered. In essence, the judge concludes that the jury's decision was legally unsupported by the facts or the law, and therefore, the judge intervenes to correct what they perceive as a clear error. This procedure is also commonly known as a "judgment notwithstanding the verdict" or, in modern federal courts, a "judgment as a matter of law."

• Example 1: Overturning a Jury's Award in a Personal Injury Case

  A plaintiff sues a pharmaceutical company, claiming a new drug caused severe side effects. After a lengthy trial, the jury finds in favor of the plaintiff and awards a substantial amount in damages. However, the company's legal team files a motion for non obstante veredicto. The judge reviews all the scientific and medical evidence presented and concludes that, despite the jury's sympathy for the plaintiff, there was no credible expert testimony or scientific data presented to establish a direct causal link between the drug and the plaintiff's specific injuries. The judge then grants the motion, setting aside the jury's verdict and entering a judgment in favor of the defendant company.

  How it illustrates the term: Here, the judge issues a judgment that directly contradicts ("notwithstanding") the jury's verdict, because the judge found the jury's decision was not supported by the evidence presented at trial, specifically lacking a crucial element of causation.

• Example 2: Reversing a Jury's Finding of No Liability in a Contract Dispute

  In a commercial dispute, a software developer sued a client for non-payment after completing a custom application. The evidence clearly showed a signed contract, documented progress reports, and emails from the client acknowledging receipt and satisfaction with the work. Despite this overwhelming evidence, the jury returned a verdict finding the client *not liable* for payment. The developer's attorney then filed a motion for non obstante veredicto. The judge, after reviewing the undisputed contractual documents and communications, determined that no reasonable jury could have concluded the client was not liable. The judge granted the motion, overturning the jury's verdict and entering a judgment finding the client liable for breach of contract and ordering payment to the developer.

  How it illustrates the term: This example shows the judge overriding the jury's verdict of "not liable" because the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of liability that the jury's decision was deemed unreasonable and legally unsustainable.

• Example 3: Setting Aside a Jury's Punitive Damages Award

  A consumer sued an auto manufacturer after a defective part led to a serious accident. The jury found the manufacturer liable for negligence and awarded compensatory damages for medical bills and lost wages. Additionally, perhaps swayed by emotional testimony about corporate greed, the jury awarded an extremely high amount in punitive damages that far exceeded any actual financial loss or legal precedent for such a case. The auto manufacturer's lawyer moved for non obstante veredicto specifically regarding the punitive damages. The judge, while upholding the jury's finding of liability and compensatory damages, found that the punitive damages award was so disproportionate and unsupported by the legal standards for punitive damages (which require evidence of egregious misconduct) that no reasonable jury could have arrived at that figure. The judge then entered a judgment reducing the punitive damages to a legally permissible amount, effectively setting aside that portion of the jury's verdict.

  How it illustrates the term: In this scenario, the judge partially overrides the jury's verdict concerning the amount of damages, concluding that the jury's award for punitive damages was legally unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence and legal standards required for such an award.