Court Opinion

ID: 9730070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:00:17.783611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:03.905153
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
In joining the majority decision, I wish to express that I have absolutely no quarrel with the damage question or the liability proven up by plaintiff against defendant. The law set forth in the majority opinion with respect to this tort is legally palatable to me. However, “[djirecting a verdict for the proponent of an issue is said to be ‘reserved for extreme circumstances.’ ” Shepard’s Manual of Federal Practice § 7.50, at 548 (2nd ed. 1979); Wilson v. United States, 530 F.2d 772 (8th Cir.1976). Especially should this be so when granting a motion for a directed verdict in favor of a plaintiff and against a defendant before the defendant has an opportunity to present his case. It is a very extreme ruling and I would caution trial courts to grant such a motion in very rare instances. SDCL 15-6-50(a) has lifted Federal Rule 50(a) verbatim.
The court has power under the rule to grant a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Nevertheless it has been said to be “the better and safer practice * * * to defer a ruling upon the motion for a directed verdict until both sides have finally rested.”
9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil, § 2533, at 585-86 (1971).
In this instance, I believe the trial court properly granted the motion. It was apparent that defendant’s defense was not a meritorious defense in law. Therefore, factual testimony would not uplift it to a legal *657posture. It makes no sense to flail the facts when, in law, they constitute no basic defense. A trial judge has no business submitting a defense to a jury unless the defense is substantiated by legal theory. A plaintiff must have a cause of action supported in theory; so, likewise, must the defendant.