Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeatts

When a jury renders a verdict, a losing party can move that the court grant judgment as a matter of law (meaning that they will prevail despite the jury's verdict).   Read Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 carefully.  We will discuss in class what this rule requires a party to do to preserve the ability to move for judgment as a matter of law.  We will also discuss the standard that the judge uses in ruling on the motion. In a nutshell, it is the summary judgment standard minus the burden-shifting baggage applied to the trial record as opposed to the summary judgment record.

Alternatively, or sometimes simultaneously, a losing party can move for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.  A party making such a motion typically argues that (i) some mistake in the conduct of the trial requires that it be redone (this argument is rarely successful), or (ii) the verdict is against "the great weight of the evidence."  Some, including me, find the availability of the second basis for a new trial puzzling.  As we will discuss in class, if a trial judge cannot grant a motion for a judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, that means that the judge believes that a rational jury could find the way this jury did.  But the judge nevertheless has the power under Rule 59 to grant a new trial to see if a different jury will reach the same, concededly rational, decision as did the first jury.  The next case illustrates this "against the great weight of the evidence" standard.  As you read it, see if you can find any functional (as opposed to historical) justification for this rule.