Opinion ID: 1060588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review for motion for a directed verdict

Text: The Court of Appeals properly stated the standard of review for reviewing a motion for a directed verdict: A directed verdict is appropriate only when the evidence is susceptible to but one conclusion. Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587, 590 (Tenn.1994); Long v. Mattingly, 797 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990). We must take the strongest legitimate view of the evidence favoring the opponent of the motion when called upon to determine whether a trial court should have granted a directed verdict. Id. In addition, all reasonable inferences in favor of the opponent of the motion must be allowed and all evidence contrary to the opponent's position must be disregarded. Eaton, 891 S.W.2d at 590; Long, 797 S.W.2d at 892. As this Court has stated: The court may grant the motion only if, after assessing the evidence according to the foregoing standards, it determines that reasonable minds could not differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. See Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d at 590. Despite having identified the correct standard of review, we are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals misapplied the standard when evaluating the evidence. In our view, the intermediate court essentially engaged in a de novo review of the evidence in that it appears to have disregarded the jury's findings and to have reevaluated the evidence in its entirety. The jury specifically found, in a special verdict form, that Alexander did not accept the promissory note presented to him by Armentrout and that Armentrout was personally liable to Alexander on the debt. Ample evidence supports both the verdict and the trial court's denial of Jay Armentrout's motion for directed verdict. In order to conclude that the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motions for directed verdict, the Court of Appeals must have found that the evidence presented is susceptible to only one conclusion and that reasonable minds could not differ as to whether Alexander accepted the promissory note. Based upon the sufficient evidence supporting the jury's verdict, we disagree.