Opinion ID: 1807882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court erred in granting on its own motion, and without a motion from the appellees, a directed verdict against the appellants.

Text: Appellees' counsel state they moved for a directed verdict during an unrecorded discussion, after appellants rested. The record does not reflect that a motion for directed verdict was taken down and transcribed by the court reporter. Appellants contend that the lower court could not enter a directed verdict on its own motion and that it committed reversible error. The lower court order and discussion surrounding it follow: THE COURT: Let the record show that the Court will grant a directed verdict for the Complainants as to liability, and I don't think there's any factual situation here that the Jury could determine otherwise and we'll go on and get that matter resolved at this point. I think the Jury, if they applied good common sense to the facts before them, will have to arrive at that conclusion. I don't think there's any room for dispute on it. Mr. Goza, do you agree with what I said? COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT (Mr. Goza): Yes, sir, Judge, we've got one good one. On the same point or before we go to something  if we're going to continue on the same point. I want  for the record, I'd like to object to the directed verdict against the Defendants. THE COURT: Do you want to take exception to the rule? COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT (Mr. Goza): Yes, sir. And, the,  we are also  we have pled affirmative defenses as to the comparative negligence of the Defendant, Edna Wright, in stopping unnecessarily in front of the Defendant, Ronald Clanton, and we feel that we should not have a directed verdict against that point as far as a part of this record, so, you can go on and rule on that and get all of this cleared up at this particular time. THE COURT: I don't think for the record that there is any proof before the Jury on contributory negligence and would not be able to instruct the Jury on that point. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT (Mr. Goza): And, I would like for the record to reflect my exception to that. Appellants cite Ross Cattle Co. v. Lewis, 415 So.2d 1029 (Miss. 1982), in support of their position. [1] We think that Ross Cattle Co. is distinguished from the present case on the facts and the nature of the case. It is obvious from the record here that the lower court and the attorneys were under the impression that motions for directed verdicts had been made, but that the motions were not recorded by the court reporter. The appellants' attorney did not object to the manner in which the directed verdicts were granted, or that no motions for directed verdicts were made by the appellees' attorney. Without question, the appellees were entitled to directed verdicts upon the uncontradicted testimony of the appellant Clanton and witnesses for the appellees. Since Newell v. State, 308 So.2d 71 (Miss. 1975), trial courts have been giving their instructions at their own volition in addition to requested instructions by the parties. Even though the motions for directed verdicts do not appear in the record, after carefully scrutinizing the record and discussions between the court and the attorneys, we are of the opinion that the directed verdict was properly entered by the trial judge.