Court Opinion

ID: 9617438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:55:18.310105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:09.322760
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion as regards the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the fraud count.
The majority correctly recites the appellate court’s duty to construe the evidence on a motion for directed verdict in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion (appellee here). Also correctly stated is the standard for appellate review of the trial court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict: the “any evidence” standard; i.e., a motion for directed verdict must be denied if there is any evidence supporting the position of the non-movant. OCGA § 9-11-50; Aaron v. Ga. Farm &c. Ins. Co., 186 Ga. App. 1, 2 (366 SE2d 355) (1988). (The standard for a motion for j.n.o.v. is, of course, the same as that for directed verdict. Russell v. State, 155 Ga. App. 555 (271 SE2d 689) (1980)).
As the majority notes, appellee (the non-movant) did present evidence, in the form of expert testimony, that at least a portion of the wood had not been treated as represented in the warranty; the majority finds that this evidence did not conclusively demonstrate scienter on the part of appellant/movant. In my opinion, the majority’s conclusion as to the import of the expert testimony is unwarranted. I believe, therefore, that the trial court acted properly in denying the motion. I therefore respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Judge Pope join in this dissent.