Background
A directed verdict can only be affirmed “where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party.” Friedrich v. Fetterman & Assocs., P.A. (2013) 137 So.3d 362, 365 quoting Owens v. Publix Supermkts., Inc. (2001) 802 So.2d 315, 315.)
How to Structure the Motion
In the context of a action for negligence, “[a] defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when ‘the plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the negligent act more likely than not caused the injury,’ but a directed verdict is improper ‘[i]f the plaintiff has presented evidence that could support a finding that the defendant more likely than not caused the injury.’” (Friedrich, supra, 137 So.3d at 365 quoting Cox, supra, 71 So.3d at 801; Int'l Sec. Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v. Rolland (2018) 271 So. 3d 33, 47.)
The Court’s Decision
“The standard for reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for directed verdict is de novo.” (Meruelo v. Mark Andrew of the Palm Beaches, Ltd. (2009) 12 So.3d 247, 250; Cohen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2016) 203 So. 3d 942, 949.)
"When an appellate court reviews the grant of a directed verdict, it must view the evidence and all inferences of fact in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party." (Frenz Enters., Inc. v. Port Everglades (1999) 746 So.2d 498, 502.)
Conversely, an appellate court must affirm the denial of a motion for directed verdict if any reasonable view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. (Amerifirst Fed. Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Dutch Realty, Inc. (1985) 475 So.2d 970, 971; Meruelo v. Mark Andrew of Palm Beaches (2009) 12 So. 3d 247, 250.)
