Motion for judgement as a matter of law is a concept of law that encompasses requesting the court to make a verdict without necessarily invoking the services of the jury ( Currie, 1977) . The party requesting for the intervention of the court seeks to appeal to the court to pass a judgement in its favour without involving the jury or after the jury has passed a verdict against the requesting party ( Hamm, 1968) . The process has been utilized in a myriad of cases. In a bid to debunk the principle, the Simplest v. Maynard case is considered for the purposes of this paper.
In the case of Simplest v. Maynard filed in 1970, the plaintiff accused the defendant for being responsible for the injuries sustained when the defendant, who was driving a fire truck at the time, crashed into the plaintiff’s car ( Justia Law, 1970) . In the course of the preceding, the defendant placed a motion requesting for a direct verdict, a request that was rejected ( Lerner, 2013) . The jury passed a verdict in favour of the plaintiff, but the court granted the defendant’s motion for j.n.o.v, which prompted the plaintiff to appeal.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The decision whether to grant a judgment of notwithstanding the verdict is usually informed by the strength of the case and legitimacy of the witness accounts (Myers, 1979). The judge decided that in reference to the Vermont Standards the plaintiff was contributory negligent; hence, partly contributing to the injury sustained (Massey, 1957). In this accord, the provision of the judgment notwithstanding the verdict by Judge Leddy was an informed decision.
It is imperative to note that judgment n.o.v. can only be justifiable proven after the evidence has been considered (Smith, 1924). The witness called upon by the plaintiff, Frank Valz, who bracketed the intersection from multiple vantage points stated that they saw the fire truck flashing red lights with its sirens wailing. Other witnesses also called upon by the defendant admitted to hearing the sirens and the flashing light of the fire truck. In regard, it is evident that the plaintiff ignored precautionary measures and he contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the judgment notwithstanding the verdict was justified.
Unathorized practice of the law is the enaggtement of an individual or entity to practice of the law without authorization or having attained the proper credentials. One can engage in the illegal practice of the law if her or she uses the phrases “lawyer,” “law office,” “by law,” of other equivalent terms without the right authorization. The usage of such terms may compel other to be believe that he ro she is authorized to engage in the practice of law in a specific state.
By providing advise to Mike using law terminologies, I will have violated ethical principals governing the low practice. I am not authorized to operarate in the state of Carlifornia, in this regard, my providing the advice caprured in the scenario, I will have engaged in anuathorized practice of the law.
References
Currie, D. P. (1977). Thoughts on Directed Verdicts and Summary Judgments. The University of Chicago Law Review , 45 (1), 72-79.
Hamm, R. L. (1968). New Trials and the Need for Uniformity in Standards, 2 J. Marshall J. of Prac. & Proc. 158 (1968). The John Marshall Law Review , 2 (1), 5.
Justia Law. (1970). US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 427 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1970). Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/427/1/267875/ .
Lerner, R. L. (2013). The Rise of Directed Verdict: Jury Power in Civil Cases Before the Federal Rules of 1938. Geo. Wash. L. Rev. , 81 , 448.
Massey, M. R. (1957). Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and for New Trial. Wyo. LJ , 12 , 284.
Myers, M. A. (1979). Rule departures and making law: Juries and their verdicts. Law and Society Review , 781-797.
Smith, Y. B. (1924). Power of the Judge to Direct a Verdict Section 457-a of the New York Civil Practice Act. Colum. L. Rev. , 24 , 111.
