Kaffenberger v. Holle

Defendant contends the evidence of his negligence, proximate cause, and plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence is insufficient to have warranted submission to the jury and that since defendant’s motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence was erroneously denied, his motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict should have been sustained. Defendant relies upon Rule 243(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:

“If the movant was entitled to have a verdict directed for him at the close of all the evidence, and moved therefor, and the jury did not return such verdict,…