Opinion ID: 2002173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Post-Verdict Motion

Text: Following the verdict in Bauldock's favor, Davco filed a motion for judgment n.o.v., making three arguments in support of the motion: first, that the undisputed evidence established that probable cause existed for Wayne Hayes to arrest [Bauldock]; second, that Bauldock settled all claims which he may have had against Wayne Hayes and, through him, [Davco]; and third, that Bauldock was not subjected to an assault and battery for which [Davco] is liable in the context of his arrest. The trial court granted the motion. It held initially that upon the evidence in this case, probable cause existed for Hayes to arrest [Bauldock] as a matter of law. The court also ruled that, while it was true that [i]f Hayes had been acting as the employee-servant of Davco at the time of his act, his release would have also operated to release Davco, it was more accurate to state that no liability ever attached to Davco by reason of any arrest or assault and battery by Hayes because in making such arrest or committing such assault and battery, if any, Hayes was not acting in his capacity as the employee-servant of defendant Davco. Finally, the court said that there was no evidence tending to show that defendant Davco had authorized Hayes to make any arrest or that defendant Davco had ordered Hayes to arrest [Bauldock].