Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)

A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a ruling by the trial judge, after a jury verdict, that enters judgment for the losing side because the evidence could not reasonably support the jury's decision. In federal court, the motion is now called a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Origin

The term translates the Latin non obstante veredicto. In 1991 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure renamed the motion a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b); many state courts still use the JNOV name. A party usually must have asked for a directed verdict before the case went to the jury to preserve the request.

Significance in Asbestos Context

After a plaintiff's verdict in an asbestos case, defendants commonly ask the judge to set it aside, arguing for example that there was not enough evidence that the plaintiff was exposed to their product or that their product was a substantial factor. They often ask in the alternative for a new trial or for a reduction in damages. Judges grant JNOV only when no reasonable jury could have reached the verdict on the evidence, so most motions are denied, but some succeed. A ruling either way can be appealed. For a family, the period after a verdict can feel uncertain: the verdict is not final, and payment usually waits until post-trial motions and any appeals are resolved.

Example Sentence

The judge denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding the coworker's testimony enough to support the jury's finding of exposure.

Related Terms

Directed Verdict, Remittitur, Appeal, Product Identification, Summary Judgment, Scintilla of Evidence

Notes

• A verdict is usually followed by post-trial motions; ask your lawyer what to expect and how long it may take.
• Payment of a verdict often waits until motions and appeals are finished.