§50.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§50.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

In addition to CR 50(a), RCW 4.56.150 provides a statutory basis for a party to challenge the legal sufficiency of an opposing party's evidence. Although CR 50 did not supersede this statute, more recent decisions refer to the terminology of the rule as opposed to the statute.

CR 50 "makes clear that a party must move for judgment as a matter of law before the trial court submits the case to the jury to preserve any opportunity to renew its motion after the case is submitted." Hanks v. Grace, 167 Wn.App. 542, 552, 273 P.3d 1029, review denied, 175 Wn.2d 1017 (2012). Amotion for a judgment as a matter of law may be renewed after the jury reaches a verdict, but it may not be submitted for the first time post verdict, and the court may deny as untimely a CR 50 motion that was not first presented to the court before the jury began its deliberations. Id. at 552-53.

Numerous cases have attempted to refine the definition of the quantum of evidence needed to avoid a directed verdict. Judgment as a matter of law should be granted if the movant can demonstrate that "there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference to sustain a verdict for the nonmoving party." Sing v. John L. Scott, Inc.,134 Wn.2d 24, 29, 948 P.2d 816 (1997). "Substantial evidence" is evidence that would "convince 'an unprejudiced, thinkingmind.'"ifmer v. Bridgestone I Firestone, Inc.,138 Wn.2d 248,255,978 P.2d 505 (1999) (quotingifo/em v. Kelly,93 Wn.2d 143,145, 606 P.2d 275 (1980))...