Opinion ID: 1133096
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion for Judgment N.O.V.

Text: The defendant claims that the motion for judgment n.o.v. should have been granted because the preponderance of the evidence    clearly shows that there was an alteration in the lease document after its execution. By this motion, the defendant was attempting to test the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict. We are unable to take cognizance of this specification of error because of the defendant's failure to preserve her right to appeal this question by moving for a directed verdict prior to submission of the case to the jury. In Pooler v. Stewarts' Pharmacies, Ltd., 42 Haw. 618, 620 (1958), this court warned that the sufficiency of evidence is not reviewable on appeal unless a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 50(a) is made in the trial court. The reason given is that [t]he party who makes no motion for a directed verdict must be of the view that the evidence makes a case for the jury and should not be permitted to impute error to the court for sharing that view. Id. The warning has been recently repeated in Gelber v. Sheraton-Hawaii Corp., 49 Haw. 327, 333, 417 P.2d 638, 641 (1966) and in Cozine v. Hawaiian Catamaran, Ltd., 49 Haw. 267, 269, 414 P.2d 428, 429 (1966). We implement the warning in this case.