KENT J. DAWSON, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (#191). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (#199) to which Defendant replied (#204/205).
Simply put, this is a slip-and-fall case involving Defendant Wal-Mart. The key issue at trial was whether Defendant had notice, actual or constructive, of a foreign substance on the floor which caused Plaintiff to fall and caused her subsequent injuries. During the trial, it became clear to the Court that one of the crucial issues was how long the substance had been on the floor. The Court raised that issue with the parties prior to Defendant making a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 50(a).
In response to Question 1 posed by the Court on the Verdict (#184), the Jury found that the foreign substance had been on the floor for only 2 minutes and 12 seconds. In response to the second question, "Was defendant Wal-mart negligent?", the Jury answered "Yes." Now, the parties have filed the present motions disputing whether sufficient evidence supports the juries verdict and whether Defendant filed a timely Rule 50(a) motion. The Court finds that the answer to the questions in its special verdict were inconsistent and the Court must vacate the Judgment in Plaintiff's favor based on the Court's duties arising under Rule 49.
Generally, the Ninth Circuit adheres, strictly, "to the requirements of Rule 50(b), which prohibit a party from moving for judgment as a matter of law after the jury's verdict unless that motion was first presented at the close of evidence."
However, "[w]hen a special verdict does not support a judgment a reviewing court may make an exception to the Rule 50(b) requirement of a motion for a directed verdict as a prerequisite to a motion for [judgment as a matter of law]."
Here, Plaintiff has opposed Defendant's motions to stay the judgment and for judgment as a matter of law in addition to moving to strike the motion for judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff is certainly correct about one issue. Defendant failed to make a timely motion for directed verdict, or judgment as matter of law under Rule 50(a). The mention of the issue, after closing arguments while the Court discussed the labeling of exhibits to be delivered to the jury, happened after the case had been submitted to the jury. "[A] motion must be made before the judge submits the case to the jury."
However, the Court clearly anticipated that issues would arise under the Rule 49(a) special verdict and told Defendant that it would have to "write it up." The Court construes Defendant's motions as arising under Rule 49(a) as anticipated. The Court does note that Defendant consistently conflates the issues and clearly believed that it also had grounds to move under Rule 50(b).
In this case, judgment was entered in accordance with a special verdict. The motion for JMOL does allege inconsistencies in the answers given in the special verdict. "When a special verdict does not support a judgment, a . . . court may make an exception to the Rule 50(b) requirement of a motion for directed verdict as a prerequisite to a motion for JNOV."
In response to Question 1 of the Verdict, the jury concluded that the foreign substance had been on the floor for two (2) minutes and twelve (12) seconds. In response to Question 2, the jury responded that, "Yes", Defendant Wal-Mart was negligent. The inconsistency between these two answers is that there was no negligent act by Wal-Mart that led to the spill nor a negligent act in the 2 minutes and 12 seconds between the spill and Plaintiff's fall that led to her injuries.
Under Nevada law, Plaintiff was required to prove the following essential elements to prevail on its claim for negligence: (1) duty; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages.
There is no evidence in this case from which a reasonable jury could infer that Wal-Mart had either actual notice of the foreign substance or constructive notice of the substance on the floor. The aisle was inspected twenty-two (22) to twenty-four (24) seconds before the time the jury found the substance was spilled on the floor. The aisle was not swept because it was blocked by customers or carts in the aisle.
In response, Plaintiff asserts that Wagner, the employee conducting the safety sweep, should have come back to sweep the aisle in question at a later time. Even assuming that was the proper procedure,
Faced with this inconsistency, Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant made a judicial admission during closing arguments that if the substance had been on the floor longer than two (2) minutes then Defendant was liable. Defendant made no such admission. Defendant did make the argument that about two minutes would have been an unreasonable time to expect them to discover the substance and act upon that discovery. Defendant used the term "two minutes" generally and did not argue that longer than two minutes was negligent. To any extent that Plaintiff argues that Defendant made a judicial admission, the Court disagrees.
Accordingly, because the answers to the questions in the verdict were inconsistent, the Court concludes that the jury erred in determining that Wal-Mart was negligent. Even if the jury was correct in determining that Wal-Mart was negligent, there was no evidence from which the jury could conclude that the negligence caused Plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, as a matter of law, the Court vacates the Judgment (#183) and directs the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment for Defendant and against Plaintiff.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay Judgment (#187) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees (#189) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (#191) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Countermotion to Strike (#195) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Withdraw (#203) is
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter