Substantive Grounds For Motions For JNOV, Nonsuit, And Directed Verdict May Be The Same, But Their Procedural Requirements Are Not.

220px Anthophyllite asbestos

In an action involving strict liability and negligence, a jury found in favor of the plaintiffs on their failure to warn and negligence claims. After the jury was discharged, but before judgment was entered, the trial court granted defendant’s pending pre-verdict motions for nonsuit and directed verdict, deeming those motions to be a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict [JNOV], and entered judgment for the defendant. The appellate court reversed, noting that although the substantive grounds for granting the motions are the same as a JNOV, their procedural requirements are not, and concluding the trial court’s order granting the JNOV was procedurally impermissible in that it was premature,  and lacked a written notice of motion and the notice required for a JNOV.  The appellate court found the trial court also erred on substantive grounds, and ordered the judgment to be reinstated in plaintiff’s favor. Webb v. Special Electric Company, Inc.  (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 1; March 14, 2013) (As Mod.; April 10, 2011) 214 Cal.App.4th 595.