Opinion ID: 1230314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Review of a Lower Court's Entry of a Directed Verdict

Text: Rule 50(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a party to move for a directed verdict. A circuit court should direct a verdict in the defendant's favor if  `the plaintiff's evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, fails to establish a prima facie right to recovery[.]'  Syl. Pt. 1, in part, Brannon v. Riffle, 197 W.Va. 97, 475 S.E.2d 97 (1996) (quoting Syl. Pt. 3, in part, Roberts v. Gale, 149 W.Va. 166, 139 S.E.2d 272 (1964)). In syllabus point three of Brannon, this Court explained as follows: The appellate standard of review for the granting of a motion for a directed verdict pursuant to Rule 50 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is de novo. On appeal, this court, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to nonmovant party, will sustain the granting of directed verdict when only one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict can be reached. But if reasonable minds could differ as to the importance and sufficiency of the evidence, a circuit court's ruling granting a directed verdict will be reversed. In evaluating a request for a directed verdict, syllabus point five of Wager v. Sine, 157 W.Va. 391, 201 S.E.2d 260 (1973), instructs that all reasonable doubts and inferences should be resolved in favor of the party against whom the verdict is asked to be directed.  ` Upon a motion to direct a verdict for the defendant, every reasonable and legitimate inference fairly arising from the testimony, when considered in its entirety, must be indulged in favorably to plaintiff; and the court must assume as true those facts which the jury may properly find under the evidence. Syllabus, Nichols v. Raleigh-Wyoming Coal Co., 112 W.Va. 85[, 163 S.E. 767 (1932) ]. ` Point 1, Syllabus, Jenkins v. Chatterton, 143 W.Va. 250[, 100 S.E.2d 808] (1957). Syl. Pt. 1, Jividen v. Legg, 161 W.Va. 769, 245 S.E.2d 835 (1978).