" (Citations omitted.) Fleegle v. Funtime, Inc. , 11th Dist. Geauga No. 98–G–2158, 1999 WL 960575, *2–3 (Sept. 30, 1999). {¶ 31} Injury to a gelding and death of a foal are things that can happen in any number of ways, with or without negligence.
{¶ 30} “Under this rule, a trial court may not grant a directed verdict unless the evidence, when construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, leads reasonable minds to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmovant.” Id. at ¶ 47, quoting Huffman v. Kazak Bros. Inc., 11th Dist. No. 2000–L–152, 2002 WL 549858, *3 (Apr. 12, 2002), citing Fleegle v. Funtime, Inc., 11th Dist. No. 98–G–2158, 1999 WL 960575, *7 (Sept. 30, 1999). {¶ 31} “In order to satisfy the ‘reasonable minds' test, the court need only determine whether there exists any evidence of substantial probative value in support of the claim.”
{¶ 42} "Under this rule, a trial court may not grant a directed verdict unless the evidence, when construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, leads reasonable minds to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmovant." Id. at ¶ 47, citing Huffman v. Kazak Bros. Inc., 11th Dist. No. 2000-L-152, 2002-Ohio-1683, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 1660, 10, citing Fleegle v. Funtime, Inc. (Sept. 30, 1999), 11th Dist. No. 98-G-2158, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4640, 7. {¶ 43} The "reasonable minds" test requires the court to determine whether there is any evidence of substantial probative nature to support the adverse party's claim.
{¶ 47} "Under this rule, a trial court may not grant a directed verdict unless the evidence, when construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, leads reasonable minds to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmovant." Huffman v. Kazak Bros. Inc. (Apr. 12, 2002), 11th Dist. No. 2000-L-152, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 1660, 10, citing Fleegle v. Funtime, Inc. (Sept. 30, 1999), 11th Dist. No. 98-G-2158, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4640, 7. {¶ 48} "A motion for a directed verdict does not present a question of fact or raise factual issues; rather, it presents a question of law, even though in deciding such a motion it is necessary to review and consider the evidence."
Under this rule, a trial court may not grant a directed verdict unless the evidence, when construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, leads reasonable minds to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmovant. Fleegle v. Funtime, Inc. (Sept. 30, 1999), Geauga App. No. 98-G-2158, unreported, 1999 WL 960575, at 7. Civ.R. 50(A), therefore, requires the trial court to give the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. Broz v. Winland (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 521, 526.
It is axiomatic that the term "abuse of discretion" connotes more than an error of law or judgment; rather, it implies that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or unconscionably. Fleegle v. Funtime, Inc. (Sept. 30, 1999), Geauga App. No. 98-G-2158, unreported, at 6, 1999 WL 960575. See, also, Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219; Rigby v. Lake Cty. (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 269, 271.