7.32Directed Verdict¹

A.Rule

A party may move for a directed verdict at the close of the opposing party’s proofs. MCR 2.516. Specific grounds must be stated. Id. If the motion is denied, the moving party may offer evidence “as if the motion had not been made.” Id. In addition, a denied motion “is not a waiver of trial by jury, even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts.” Id.

B.Test Applied by the Court

“When evaluating a motion for directed verdict, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, making all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor.” Chouman v Home Owners Ins Co, 293 Mich App 434, 441 (2011). “A directed verdict is appropriate where reasonable minds could not differ on a factual question.” Id. The court should state its reasons or grounds for granting a motion for directed verdict. Turner v Mut Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n, 316 Mich 6, 27 (1946).

C.Motion on Opening Statement

Although a motion for directed verdict may be based upon the insufficiencies of the opposing party’s opening statement, Jones v Hicks, 358 Mich 474, 485 (1960), “a directed verdict after an opening statement is a limited and disfavored action, which is only proper where an opening statement, in addition to the pleadings, fails to establish a plaintiff’s right to recover,” Young v Barker, 158 Mich App 709, 720 (1987). “The specific test to be used in examining the opening statement is whether it encompasses all of the ultimate facts proposed to be proven and essential to plaintiff’s cause of action.” Fenton Country House, Inc v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 63 Mich App 445, 449 (1975) (granting the plaintiff a directed verdict after the defendant’s opening statement, where the defendant’s pleadings and opening statement were insufficient to establish the claimed affirmative defense).

D.Standard of Review

The trial court’s decision on a motion for directed verdict is reviewed de novo. Sniecinski v BCBSM, 469 Mich 124, 131 (2003). The trial court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Samuel D Begola Servs, Inc v Wild Bros, 210 Mich App 636, 639 (1995) (equitable action).