libterm.com A directed verdict is a ruling made by a judge during a trial, concluding that no reasonable jury could reach a different decision based on the evidence presented. This legal procedure effectively ends the trial without a jury deliberation when one party has failed to prove an essential element of their case. Discover how directed verdicts impact your legal strategy and trial outcomes in the rest of this article.
Table of Comparison
| Aspect | Directed Verdict | Remittitur |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Judge's ruling removing jury's decision due to insufficient evidence. | Judge's reduction of a jury's excessive monetary award. |
| Legal Context | Occurs during trial before jury deliberation. | Occurs after jury verdict on damages. |
| Purpose | Prevent wrongful verdict when evidence legally insufficient. | Correct or reduce unreasonable jury damages. |
| Timing | Motion made during trial, typically post-plaintiff's case. | Post-verdict motion before final judgment. |
| Effect | Removes case from jury; judge decides or dismisses. | Adjusts damages award; jury may accept reduced amount. |
| Appeal Basis | Challenging sufficiency of evidence. | Reasonableness of damages awarded. |
| Legal Standard | Evidence viewed in favor of non-moving party. | Damages must be shocking or outrageous. |
Introduction to Directed Verdict and Remittitur
A directed verdict occurs when a judge decides the outcome of a case without allowing the jury to deliberate, typically because the evidence so overwhelmingly favors one party that no reasonable jury could find otherwise. Remittitur is a post-trial procedure where a judge reduces an excessive jury verdict to a reasonable amount, offering the plaintiff the choice to accept the reduction or face a new trial. Both mechanisms serve as judicial tools to prevent unjust outcomes and ensure verdicts adhere to legal standards.
Definition of Directed Verdict
A directed verdict is a legal ruling made by a judge during a trial when the evidence presented by one party is insufficient to support a reasonable jury verdict in their favor, effectively directing the jury to return a specific verdict. It occurs before the case goes to the jury for deliberation, typically after the plaintiff or defendant has presented their case. Remittitur, by contrast, is a post-verdict judicial process where the judge reduces the amount of damages awarded by the jury when it is deemed excessive.
Definition of Remittitur
Remittitur is a procedural device in civil litigation where a judge reduces the amount of damages awarded by a jury if it is deemed excessive or unsupported by the evidence. Unlike a directed verdict, which resolves the case or specific claims by taking the decision away from the jury due to insufficient evidence, remittitur modifies the jury's damage award while allowing the verdict to stand. This approach preserves the jury's factual findings but recalibrates the monetary relief to align with legal standards and evidence.
Legal Basis for Directed Verdict
The legal basis for a directed verdict lies in the judge's determination that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party based on the evidence presented, effectively removing the case from the jury's consideration. This motion, often filed at the close of the plaintiff's or defendant's case, asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict for the opposing party under the applicable law. Directed verdicts are grounded in established rules of civil procedure and evidentiary standards, aiming to prevent legally unsupported claims from proceeding to a jury decision.
Legal Basis for Remittitur
Remittitur is grounded in the legal principle that a trial court may reduce a jury's damage award if it finds the amount excessive and unsupported by evidence, ensuring the verdict aligns with reasonable standards of compensation. Unlike a directed verdict, which entirely removes the issue from the jury by concluding no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party, remittitur serves as a judicial mechanism to adjust damages without overturning the entire verdict. This process upholds fairness and judicial economy by preventing the need for a new trial when the damages awarded are disproportionately high but the liability finding is sound.
Key Differences Between Directed Verdict and Remittitur
A directed verdict occurs when a judge rules in favor of one party without allowing the jury to deliberate, typically due to insufficient evidence presented by the opposing party. Remittitur is a post-verdict remedy where a judge reduces the amount of damages awarded by a jury if it is deemed excessive or unsupported by the evidence. The key difference lies in timing and function: directed verdicts prevent jury deliberation by deciding the case outright, while remittitur modifies jury awards after a verdict has been rendered.
Procedural Steps for Directed Verdict
Directed verdict requires the plaintiff to present sufficient evidence at trial, followed by the defense motioning for judgment as a matter of law before the case is submitted to the jury. The judge reviews the evidence to determine if reasonable jurors could find in favor of the plaintiff, granting the directed verdict if the evidence is insufficient. Unlike remittitur, which involves reducing jury awards post-verdict, the directed verdict occurs during the trial phase as a procedural safeguard against unsupported claims.
Procedural Steps for Remittitur
The procedural steps for remittitur begin with the trial judge determining that the jury's award is excessive and ordering a reduction in damages unless the plaintiff consents to the lower amount. The plaintiff is then given the option to accept the reduced judgment or opt for a new trial on damages. The court must ensure that the remittitur is not coercive and that the reduction aligns with legal standards for compensatory damages.
Impact on Appeals and Case Outcomes
Directed verdicts eliminate issues for jury determination, significantly limiting appellate review since courts rarely overturn these rulings absent clear legal errors. Remittitur, by reducing jury awards post-verdict, preserves the jury's factual findings while inviting appellate scrutiny on damages' reasonableness. The impact on case outcomes diverges as directed verdicts can abruptly end trials, whereas remittitur often facilitates settlements or revised judgments, influencing appellate strategies and potential reversals.
Conclusion: Choosing the Appropriate Remedy
Selecting the appropriate remedy between a directed verdict and remittitur hinges on the trial context and legal standards. A directed verdict is suitable when evidence overwhelmingly supports one party, eliminating the need for jury deliberation, thereby ensuring judicial efficiency. Remittitur addresses excessive jury awards by offering a reduced damages figure without a new trial, balancing fairness with judicial economy.
Directed verdict Infographic
