Court Opinion

ID: 9665572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:51:45.300847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:16.831281
License: Public Domain

ERICKSTAD, Judge
(concurring specially) .
I concur in Judge Knudson’s view that the trial court erred in directing the verdict for the plaintiff. When opposing parties make opposing motions for directed verdicts, each party is thereby objecting to the direction of the verdict for the other. Under those circumstances, pursuant to Rule 50(a), N.D.R. Civ.P., the trial court must submit to the jury the issues of all claims as to which evidence has been received.
I am not convinced that the error is without prejudice and am reluctant to so conclude, lest, in so doing, I encourage this practice in the future. Because I am in the *106minority in this case, however, I believe that no worthwhile purpose would be served by further discussion of that issue.
The rule now established by the majority opinion creates a trap for the unwary lawyer who fails to say, “I object to the granting of my adversary’s opposing motion.” Unless those magic words are used, the court may grant the adversary’s motion and deny his motion, in effect taking the case from the jury. Under those circumstances, and pursuant to the majority opinion, trial de novo on appeal is not available, even when demand is properly made and is contained in the statement of the case. We thus have the situation in which, upon appeal, the judge’s decision in the form of a directed verdict would be reviewed as a jury verdict, rather than as a judge’s decision. A verdict of the jury must be viewed on appeal in the light most favorable to it, and if there is substantial evidence to support it, it must be upheld; a judge’s decision is entitled only to appreciable weight. Whether apparent from this discussion or not, the practical results are significant.