 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pratt v. Himel Marine6/21/2002
e 1810 provides as follows:
A party who moves for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent may offer evidence in the event that the motion is not granted, without having reserved the right so to do and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a directed verdict that is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts. A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor. The order of the court granting a motion for a directed verdict is effective without any assent of the jury.
A trial judge has much discretion in determining whether or not to grant a motion for directed verdict. Barnes v. Thames, 578 So. 2d 1155, 1162 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writs denied, 577 So. 2d 1009 (La. 1991). A motion for directed verdict is appropriately granted in a jury trial when, after considering all evidentiary inferences in the light most favorable to the movant's opponent, it is clear that the facts and inferences are so overwhelmingly in favor of the moving party that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict. New Orleans Property Development, Limited v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, 93-0692, p. 5 (La. App. 1st Cir. 4/8/94), 642 So. 2d 1312, 1315; Barnes, 578 So. 2d at 1162. However, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motion, i.e., evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury. New Orleans Property Development, Limited, 93-0692 at p. 5, 642 So. 2d at 1315.
On appeal, the standard of review for directed verdicts is whether, viewing the evidence submitted, the appellate court concludes that reasonable people could not reach a contrary verdict. Bergeron v. Blake Drilling & Workover Company, Inc., 599 So. 2d 827, 849 (La. App. 1st Cir.), writs denied, 605 So. 2d 1117, 1119 (La. 1992). It is axiomatic that the propriety of a directed verdict must be evaluated in light of the substantive law underpinning the plaintiff's claims. New Orleans Property Development, Limited, 93-0692 at p 6, 642 So. 2d at 1315.
Pursuant to LSA-C.C. art. 2522:
The buyer must give the seller notice of the existence of a redhibitory defect in the thing sold. That notice must be sufficiently timely as to allow the seller the opportunity to make the required repairs. A buyer who fails to give that notice suffers diminution of the warranty to the extent the seller can show that the defect could have been repaired or that the repairs would have been less burdensome, had he received timely notice.
Such notice is not required when the seller has actual knowledge of the existence of a redhibitory defect in the thing sold. The evidence presented at trial showed that the only complaint Grady White received about the vessel concerned the air conditioner. Vernon Bacque testified that in response to Dr. Pratt's complaints about the air conditioner, Grady White referred him to the manufacturer of the air conditioner. Grady White's records indicate that it was contacted about the air conditioning on August 8, 1996, at which time, the air conditioner was out of warranty. Nonetheless, Grady White purchased and paid for the installation of a new water pump for the air conditioner. Other than this isolated incident, the record is devoid of any showing that Grady White had notice of any other redhibitory defects or problems with the vessel.
Furthermore, LSA-C.C. article 2531 provides, in pertinent part, that:
A seller who is held liable for a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|