K-MART CORPORATION v. Butler

Supreme Court of Alabama

K-MART CORPORATION v. Butler

486 So. 2d 426, 1986 Ala. LEXIS 3491

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 28, 1986

Docket84-1041

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 486 So. 2d 426 (K-MART CORPORATION v. Butler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

K-MART CORPORATION v. Butler, 486 So. 2d 426, 1986 Ala. LEXIS 3491 (Ala. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 So. 2d 426, 1986 Ala. LEXIS 3491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-mart-corporation-v-butler-ala-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack