Motion for Directed Verdict
1Elements and Case Citations
[MM_Access_Decision access='false']
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480(a) authorizes a party to move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence and before the case is submitted to the jury.
To obtain a directed verdict, the movant must establish that “the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that a jury could not reasonably differ as to the existence of a material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Speedway, LLC v. Cevallos, 331 So. 3d 731, 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). “A motion for directed verdict should not be granted unless the trial court, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for the non-moving party.” Houghton v. Bond, 680 So. 2d 514, 522–23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). “Such a motion should be considered by a trial court with extreme caution, because the granting thereof amounts to a holding that the non-moving party’s case is devoid of probative evidence.” Id.
Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:
- The complete explanation for this Standard;
- The standard of review on appeal; and
- The citations to the most court cases citing and/or explaining the Standard.
Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide
Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!
[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480(a) authorizes a party to move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence and before the case is submitted to the jury.
To obtain a directed verdict, the movant must establish that “the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that a jury could not reasonably differ as to the existence of a material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Speedway, LLC v. Cevallos, 331 So. 3d 731, 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). “A motion for directed verdict should not be granted unless the trial court, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, determines that no reasonable jury could render a verdict for the non-moving party.” Houghton v. Bond, 680 So. 2d 514, 522–23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). “Such a motion should be considered by a trial court with extreme caution, because the granting thereof amounts to a holding that the non-moving party’s case is devoid of probative evidence.” Id.
For example, a motion for a directed verdict is not always appropriate in negligence cases. “[I]n negligence cases . . . directed verdict motions should be treated with special caution because it is the function of the jury to weigh and evaluate the evidence.” Etheredge v. Walt Disney World Co., 999 So. 2d 669, 671-72 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “‘[W]hile a directed verdict is appropriate in cases where the plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the negligent act more likely than not caused the injury, it is not appropriate in cases where there is conflicting evidence as to the causation or the likelihood of causation.” Martinez v. Lobster Haven, LLC, 320 So. 3d 873, 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).
The standard of review on appeal for an order granting or denying a motion for directed verdict is de novo. However, the appellate court reviewing an order granting a motion for directed verdict must view all evidence and inferences of fact in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and may only affirm where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.; Elliott v. Elliott, 58 So. 3d 878, 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Merritt v. OLMHP, LLC, 112 So. 3d 559, 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Island Travel & Tours, Ltd., Co. v. MYR Indep., Inc., 300 So. 3d 1236, 1238-39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Banco Espirito Santo Intern., Ltd. v. BDO Intern., B.V., 979 So. 2d 1030, 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Contreras v. U.S. Sec. Ins. Co., 927 So. 2d 16, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Andrews v. Direct Mail Exp., Inc., 1 So. 3d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
FLORIDA STATE COURTS
Supreme Court: S. Wood Indus. v. Fla. Carolina Lumber Co., 84 So. 2d 589, 589-90 (Fla. 1956) (reversing directed verdict for the defendant); Meruelo v. Mark Andrew of Palm Beaches, Ltd., 12 So. 3d 247, 250-52 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (“revers[ing] the trial court’s denial of. . .motion for directed verdict . . . and remand[ing] for entry of a directed verdict.)
First District: Turner v. Gamiz, 327 So. 3d 1253, 1255-56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (reversing directed verdict for appellee); DZE Corp. v. Vickers, 299 So. 3d 538, 539-42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“revers[ing] with directions to grant a directed verdict”).
Second District: Roman v. Sos, 393 So. 3d 1263, 1266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024); Olguin v. Olguin, 2022 WL 1654814, *1-5 (Fla. 2d DCA May 25, 2022) (reversing directed verdict); Merritt v. OLMHP, 112 So. 3d 559, 561-563 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (affirming order granting motion for directed verdict).
Third District: People's Tr. Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 400 So. 3d 744, 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024); Forbes v. Millionaire Gallery, Inc., 335 So. 3d 1260, 1262-63 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (affirming denial of directed verdict); Hernandez v. Mishali, 319 So. 3d 753, 757-62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (reversing directed verdict).
Fourth District: Anchor Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Trif., 322 So. 3d 663, 669-77 (Fla. 4th DCA. 2021) (affirming denial of directed verdict); Gyongyosi v. Miller, 80 So. 3d 1070, 1072-78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (affirming order granting directed verdict).
Fifth District: Andrews v. Direct Mail Exp., Inc., 1 So. 3d 1192, 1193-94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (reversing directed verdict); McDonald v. McGowan, 402 So. 2d 1197, 1199-1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (reversing directed verdict and affirming directed verdict on counterclaim).
2 Issues And Considerations
(1) “‘[A] party cannot seek judgment in accordance with a previously-made motion for directed verdict unless that party has actually asserted the grounds raised in the motion for directed verdict made at the conclusion of the evidence in the case.’” Martinez v. Lobster Haven, LLC, 320 So. 3d 873, 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021).
(2) “[O]ne who submits his cause to the trier of fact without first moving for directed verdict at the end of all evidence has waived the right to make that motion.” Strickland v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 323 So. 3d 783, 785 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) citing Prime Motor Inns, Inc. v. Waltman, 480 So. 2d 88, 90 (Fla. 1985).
(3) “Because the rule treats the denial of a motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence as a reservation of ruling, in order to preserve the point for appellate review it is necessary to make an appropriate post-trial motion.” Brown v. State, 940 So. 2d 609, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
(4) “It is appropriate to direct a verdict for the defendant only when the evidence considered in its entirety and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom fail to prove the plaintiff’s case under the issues made by the pleadings.” Rosa v. Dep’t of Child. & Families, 915 So. 2d 210, 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
(5) “When determining whether a directed verdict is appropriate, the reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment concerning credibility of the witnesses for that of the trier of fact.” Sanders v. ERP Operating Ltd. P’ship, 157 So. 3d 273, 280 (Fla. 2015).
[/MM_Access_Decision]