In a personal injury lawsuit, the jury awards the Plaintiff $500,000 in damages after finding in favor of the claims. The Defendant now submits a post-verdict motion arguing that the Plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to support the claim of negligence. What is the most appropriate outcome of this motion?
The court vacates the verdict to reassess the case in a different jurisdiction.
The court upholds the jury's verdict because there was sufficient evidence to support the elements of negligence.
The court issues a new trial because the Defendant did not meet the burden of proof for negligence.
The court reduces the damages because the Plaintiff exceeded the reasonable scope of injury.
A motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted only if the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's verdict, meaning that no reasonable jury could have reached that decision. If the jury's verdict was supported by adequate evidence for each element, the motion should be denied. The correct answer reflects that the motion should be denied because the jury's decision was evidence-based. Other options incorrectly link the motion outcome to unrelated factors such as industry standards or procedural delays.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does burden of proof mean in a negligence case?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the elements of negligence that need to be proven?