Vt. R. Civ. P. 50

As amended through November 4, 2024

Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in Actions Tried by a Jury; Alternative Motions for New Trial; Conditional Rulings

(a)Judgment as a Matter of Law.

(1) If during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue, the court may determine the issue against that party and may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against that party with respect to a claim or defense that cannot under the controlling law be maintained or defeated without a favorable finding on that issue.

(2) Motions for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before submission of the case to the jury. Such a motion shall specify the judgment sought and the law and the facts on which the moving party is entitled to judgment.

(b)Renewal of Motion for Judgment after Trial; Alternative Motion for New Trial. Whenever a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under subdivision (a) is not granted, the court is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motion. Such a motion may be renewed by filing not later than 28 days after entry of judgment or, if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged. Renewal of a motion based upon the sufficiency of the evidence under paragraph (a)(1) is necessary to appeal from a denial of or a failure to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law on that issue. A motion for a new trial under Rule 59 may be joined with renewal of the motion, or a new trial may be requested in the alternative. If a verdict was returned, the court may, in disposing of the renewed motion, allow the judgment to stand or may reopen the judgment and either order a new trial or direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law. If no verdict was returned the court may, in disposing of the renewed motion, direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law or may order a new trial.

(c)Same: Conditional Rulings on Grant of Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

(1) If the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law is granted, the court shall also rule on the motion for a new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall specify the grounds for granting or denying the motion for the new trial. If the motion for a new trial is thus conditionally granted, the order thereon does not affect the finality of the judgment. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally granted and the judgment is reversed on appeal, the new trial shall proceed unless the appellate court has otherwise ordered. In case the motion for a new trial has been conditionally denied, the appellee on appeal may assert error in that denial; and if the judgment is reversed on appeal, subsequent proceedings shall be in accordance with the order of the appellate court.

(2) The party against whom judgment as a matter of law has been granted may file a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 not later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.

(d)Same: Denial of Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. If the motion for judgment as a matter of law is denied, the party who prevailed on that motion may, as appellee, assert grounds entitling the party to a new trial in the event the appellate court concludes that the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, nothing in this rule precludes it from determining that the appellee is entitled to a new trial, or from directing the trial court to determine whether a new trial shall be granted.

Vt. R. Civ. P. 50

Amended Nov. 9, 1987, eff. 3/1/1988; 11/4/1994, eff. 3/1/1995; 10/11/2006, 12/11/2006; eff. 5/7/2009; amended Sept. 20, 2017, eff. 1/1/2018; amended April 18, 2022, eff. 6/20/2022.

reporter's notes-2022 amendment

V.R.C.P. 50(b) is amended in response to the Vermont Supreme Court's request in Blondin v. Milton Town School District, 2021 VT 2, ¶ 26 n. 10, __ Vt. __, 251 A.3d 959, that the Civil Rules Committee consider whether that rule "should be amended to be consistent with the federal rule and potentially to allow consideration of pure questions of law on appeal absent renewal following judgment."

V.R.C.P. 50(b) as originally adopted in 1971 was identical to F.R.C.P. 50(b) as it then stood. Reporter's Notes (1971). In 1988 the Vermont Rule was amended by the addition of the language, "Renewal of the motion is necessary to appeal from a denial of or failure to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law." The 1988 Reporter's Notes state that the sentence was added to make explicit a requirement found implicit in F.R.C.P. 50(b) to which the Vermont Rule was otherwise identical. Subsequent amendments to V.R.C.P. 50(b) tracked most changes in the Federal Rule through 2009. See Reporter's Notes to 2009 and 2018 amendments of V.R.C.P. 50(b). The requirement of renewal of the motion before an appeal from the denial, however, remains unique to the Vermont Rule.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 407 (2006), held that failure to renew a pre-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) prevented appellate review of a sufficiency of evidence challenge. In Blondin, the Vermont Supreme Court, 2021 VT 2, ¶¶ 10-11, noted several Federal Court of Appeals decisions holding that Unitherm applied only to Rule 50(b) motions addressing sufficiency of the evidence and that a motion raising "a pure question of law" could be reviewed even though the motion had not been renewed after verdict. Even assuming, though not deciding, that "a pure question of law" had been raised by respondent, the Vermont Supreme Court, in light of the explicit renewal requirement unique to the Vermont Rule, declined "of our own motion" to adopt this exception.

The U.S. Court of Appeals decisions examined by the Vermont Supreme Court, and many other such decisions that recognize the pure question of law exception, read Unitherm as limited to questions of sufficiency of the evidence and not extending to issues that do not involve any evidentiary questions and would normally only be decided by the judge in a jury trial. See, e.g., Doherty v. City of Maryville, 431 F. App'x 381, 385 (6th Cir. 2011); Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., 679 F.3d 146, 160 (4th Cir. 2012); Linden v. CNH Am., LLC, 673 F.3d 829, 832-33 (8th Cir. 2012); Frank C. Pollara Grp., LLC v. Ocean View Inv. Holding, LLC, 784 F.3d 177, 188 (3d Cir. 2015). See also cases cited in 9B Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 2537, 2540 (3d ed.).

The present amendment of V.R.C.P. 50(b) adopts this interpretation of Unitherm by limiting the requirement to renew the motion to sufficiency-of-the-evidence questions. The effect of the amendment is to allow case-by-case development of the line between sufficiency-of-the-evidence questions and pure questions of law. The amendment reflects a change in the circumstances that led to the 1988 amendment of V.R.C.P. 50(b). The Reporter's Notes to that amendment state that the purpose of the added sentence was to make clear that Federal case law was "unambiguous" in requiring a new motion after verdict for judgment notwithstanding the verdict to support an appeal from a denial of a directed verdict. Unitherm, decided in 2006, and the many Courts of Appeal's decisions applying it, make clear that Federal case law has undergone the sea change reflected in the present amendment: Only motions for judgment based on sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims require a new post-verdict motion.

Reporter's Notes-2018 Amendment

Rule 50 is amended for consistency with the current federal standard for motion practice, which was extended from 10 days to 28 days.