Legal Definitions - taking a case from the jury

Taking a case from the jury refers to a judge's decision to conclude a trial without allowing the jury to deliberate and render a verdict. This typically occurs when one party, after presenting their evidence, has failed to provide sufficient proof to support their legal claim or defense, even if all their evidence were believed by the jury. In such circumstances, the judge determines that no reasonable jury could find in favor of that party, and therefore, there is no factual dispute for the jury to resolve. This action is also commonly known as granting a "directed verdict."

Here are some examples illustrating this concept:

• Example 1: Insufficient Evidence in a Personal Injury Claim

  Imagine a lawsuit where a plaintiff claims they slipped and fell in a grocery store due to a wet floor, sustaining an injury. During the trial, the plaintiff testifies they fell, but presents no evidence whatsoever that the store employees knew about the spill, should have known about it, or that the spill had been there for an unreasonable amount of time. They offer no witness testimony, security footage, or employee statements to establish the store's negligence. After the plaintiff finishes presenting their case, the store's attorney asks the judge to "take the case from the jury."

  Explanation: In this scenario, the judge would likely grant the request. Even if the jury believed every word the plaintiff said about falling, there's no evidence presented that the store acted negligently, which is a required element for a slip-and-fall claim. Since no reasonable jury could find the store liable based on the evidence presented, the judge "takes the case from the jury" and rules in favor of the grocery store, preventing the jury from deliberating on a case that lacks a fundamental legal basis.

• Example 2: Undisputed Facts in a Contract Dispute

  Consider a business dispute where Company A sues Company B for breach of contract, claiming Company B failed to deliver goods as agreed. Company A presents a signed contract, proof of payment, and emails showing Company B acknowledged the order but never shipped the products. Company B, in its defense, admits to signing the contract, receiving payment, and failing to deliver the goods, but offers no legal justification for its actions (e.g., no claim of impossibility, fraud, or prior breach by Company A). After both sides present their evidence, Company A's attorney moves for the judge to "take the case from the jury."

  Explanation: Here, the essential facts of the breach are undisputed, and Company B has presented no valid legal defense. There is no factual question for the jury to decide regarding whether a contract existed, whether it was breached, or whether Company B had a valid excuse. A reasonable jury could only conclude that Company B breached the contract. Therefore, the judge would "take the case from the jury," rule in favor of Company A, and proceed to determine damages.