Opinion ID: 2399640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Completeness of Factual Record

Text: The Trievel Plaintiffs lastly contend that because the testimony of defendant Sabo and his expert, and a viewing of the scene of the accident, were not before the Court at the time the trial judge entered his ruling in favor of Sabo, the factual record was incomplete and, therefore, the trial court erred in prematurely entering judgment as a matter of law. Superior Court Civil Rule 50 anticipates that a trial court may grant judgment as a matter of law when a party has been fully heard on an issue. [19] In this case, the Trievel Plaintiffs were permitted to fully present their case to the jury prior to the trial judge's ruling. And, the trial judge specifically instructed the Trievel Plaintiffs to finish their liability case knowing that he would be considering Sabo's Rule 50 motion at the close of the Trievel Plaintiffs' case. [20] We, therefore, find the Trievel Plaintiffs' argument to be without merit.