Baab v. Shockling

Appellant raises two propositions of law. The first proposition asserts that the trial court erred by not directing the verdict for plaintiff on the basis that the defendant acted with wanton misconduct in the operation of his vehicle.

Civ. R. 50 (A) (4) provides the test for a directed verdict. The rule states:

“When a motion for a directed verdict has been properly made, and the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determinative issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the…