A party who moves for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent may offer evidence in the event that the motion is not granted, without having reserved the right to do so and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a directed verdict which is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts. A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.

Annotations

Although a motion for directed verdict should state the specific grounds therefor, where proof relating to a specific issue is so clear and convincing that reasonable minds cannot reach different conclusions, it is the duty of the trial court to enter judgment in accordance with the evidence. Hill v. City of Lincoln, 249 Neb. 88, 541 N.W.2d 655 (1996).

In the absence of a showing of prejudice, error may not be predicated on failure to state reasons in motion for directed verdict. Swink v. Smith, 173 Neb. 423, 113 N.W.2d 515 (1962).

Motion for directed verdict should set forth specific grounds. Allied Building Credits, Inc. v. Damicus, 167 Neb. 390, 93 N.W.2d 210 (1958); Segebart v. Gregory, 156 Neb. 261, 55 N.W.2d 678 (1952).

Motion sufficiently stated the specific grounds therefor. Sullivan v. Omaha & C. B. St. Ry. Co., 160 Neb. 342, 70 N.W.2d 98 (1955).

Although joined in by all parties, motion for directed verdict raises only questions of law and does not constitute waiver of a jury trial. In re Estate of Coons, 154 Neb. 690, 48 N.W.2d 778 (1951).

Act applies only in a case in which a motion for a directed verdict is made at the close of the evidence. In re Estate of Kinsey, 152 Neb. 95, 40 N.W.2d 526 (1949).