From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

K-Mart Corporation v. Butler

Supreme Court of Alabama
Mar 28, 1986
486 So. 2d 426 (Ala. 1986)

Summary

In K-Mart Corp. v. Butler, 486 So.2d 426 (Ala. 1986), this Court held that where the defendant did not move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, although it had moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, the question of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence could not be considered on appeal. See also, Skipper v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 460 So.2d 1270 (Ala. 1984); McDonald's Corp. v. Grissom, 402 So.2d 953 (Ala. 1981).

Summary of this case from Rast Construction, Inc. v. Peters

Opinion

No. 84-1041.

March 28, 1986.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Colbert County, Inge P. Johnson, J.

Amy K. Myers and William A. Scott, Jr., of Clark Scott, Birmingham, for appellant.

D. Marcel Black, of Hewlett, Black Marks, Tuscumbia, for appellees.


This case involves claims based on negligence and on misrepresentation. At trial, at the close of all the evidence, appellant/defendant K-Mart made a motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to establish K-Mart's negligence and was insufficient to establish the alleged misrepresentation. The trial court denied the motion and sent the case to the jury on both counts. The jury returned a verdict against K-Mart, and the trial court entered judgment thereon. Without making any post-trial motions, K-Mart appealed to this Court.

On appeal, K-Mart argues that the trial court improperly denied its directed verdict motion because plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case on either count. Unfortunately, however, we cannot review the sufficiency of plaintiffs' evidence at the trial below, because when a defendant "[does] not move for a J.N.O.V. nor seek a new trial, the propriety of the trial court's failure to direct a verdict on the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence is not before us." McDonald's Corp. v. Grissom, 402 So.2d 953, 954 (Ala. 1981). See also, Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Sealy, 374 So.2d 877 (Ala. 1979). K-Mart makes no other arguments on appeal; therefore, the judgment appealed from is due to be, and it hereby is, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

K-Mart Corporation v. Butler

Supreme Court of Alabama
Mar 28, 1986
486 So. 2d 426 (Ala. 1986)

In K-Mart Corp. v. Butler, 486 So.2d 426 (Ala. 1986), this Court held that where the defendant did not move for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, although it had moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, the question of the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence could not be considered on appeal. See also, Skipper v. Alabama Farm Bureau Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 460 So.2d 1270 (Ala. 1984); McDonald's Corp. v. Grissom, 402 So.2d 953 (Ala. 1981).

Summary of this case from Rast Construction, Inc. v. Peters
Case details for

K-Mart Corporation v. Butler

Case Details

Full title:K-MART CORPORATION v. Bobby Joe BUTLER, et al

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Mar 28, 1986

Citations

486 So. 2d 426 (Ala. 1986)

Citing Cases

Spiers v. Flowers

502 So.2d 760 at 761. K-Mart Corp. v. Butler, 486 So.2d 426 (Ala. 1986). Therefore, we cannot review the…

Rast Construction, Inc. v. Peters

Rast's next argument is that, because it moved for a directed verdict, it is entitled to a review of the…