Directed Verdicts in Negligence Cases

A directed verdict is where the judge renders a verdict, usually for the defendant, instead of handing the case to the jury because he feels that no reasonable jury could decide in the plaintiff's favor. The last few cases in Torts, a directed verdict was rendered.

I was kind of confused by the decision for the judge to direct a verdict especially in a case where a blind employee bumped into a 75 year old man, which resulted severe injuries when he hit the floor. The old man sued the blind employee for negligence because he did not have his walking cane with him at the time of the incident. However, expert testimony exclaimed that it is common and usual for a blind individual to not use his cane when walking around at his place of employment; therefore he acted with reasonable care.

I agreed, but believed that it should go to the jury to weigh the facts and reasonably render on the side of the defendant. However, the judge rendered a directed verdict of the defendant without handing the case to the jury. Puzzled, I asked the professor to explain. Of course he didn't answer me directly (professors never do) but instead he posed another hypothetical about a malpractice case where the doctor was actually not liable for negligence. He then asked me whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the doctor is not liable for negligence when the plaintiff is in the courtroom bandaged up. The jury would have been swayed by their emotions rather than rendering a reasonable judgment. It made sense when he explained it that way: juries are not always the best to render a decision. (also this was a matter of law and not a matter of fact since there was insufficient evidence that he knowingly or should have known that he was breaching his duty of care...anyway...)

In the blind man case, he did not breach his duty by walking without a cane. It was unfortunate that someone got hurt, but legally, he was within his right to walk without the cane in an area that is most familiar with him. A jury might have felt sorry for the old man if given the case, but that wouldn't have been the correct judgment based on the matter of law since the plaintiff is unable to establish a prima facie case.