iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Standard of Review			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
 Standard of Review-JNO
(Mason v. Lake Dolores Group)

Standard of Review-JNOV-Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict
(Mason v. Lake Dolores Group)

DISCUSSION

A.  Standard of Review

            On an appeal from a JNOV, we ordinarily use the same standard the trial court used in granting the JNOV.  We independently determine whether the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, contains any substantial evidence to support the verdict.  If substantial evidence supports the verdict, the trial court erred in granting the JNOV and we reverse.  (Paykar Construction, Inc. v. Spilat Construction Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 488, 494; Begnal v. Canfield & Associates, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 66, 72.)  And, where the issue presented deals solely with the application of a statute to the facts supporting the jury’s verdict, it is a question of law which we review de novo.  (Gunnell v. Metrocolor Laboratories, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 710, 718-719.)

            The trial court granted the JNOV solely on the ground that Mason’s negligence action was barred by the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy rule.  (§ 3600, subd. (a).)  In so ruling, the trial court reasoned that the relevant facts were undisputed, and that Mason was acting in the course of his employment when he was injured, as a matter of law.  “Whether an employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of [his or] her employment is generally a question of fact to be determined in light of the circumstances of the particular case.  [Citations.]  However, where the facts are undisputed, resolution of the question becomes a matter of law.  [Citations.]”  (Wright v. Beverly Fabrics, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 346, 353.)

            Mason contends that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that he was not acting in the course of his employment when he was injured.[3]  LDG contends that the trial court’s ruling was correct and that the relevant facts are undisputed.  We agree with Mason that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that he was not acting in the course of his employment when he was injured.  We therefore conclude that the worker’s compensation exclusive remedy rule did not bar Mason’s negligence action against LDG. 

            Accordingly, the JNOV must be reversed.  The order granting a new trial must also be reversed, because it was based solely on the same ground as the order granting the JNOV.  In granting the motion for a new trial, the trial court reasoned that the verdict was “contrary to law.”  Where, as here, “‘a trial court in granting a new trial based its order exclusively upon an erroneous concept of legal principles applicable to the cause, its order will be reversed.’  [Citation.]”  (Maher v. Saad (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1323; accord, Treber v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 128, 136; see also In re Coordinated Latex Glove Litigation (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 594, 614 [order granting alternative motion for new trial moot where based solely on same legal issue as order granting JNOV].) 

            Because LDG has failed to file a protective cross-appeal, reinstatement of the judgment in favor of Mason will automatically be final.  (Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of America (1985) 38 Cal.3d 892, 910.)  This appeal is limited to the issue of whether the trial court erred in granting the JNOV and alternative order for a new trial.  We are not reviewing whether, for example, substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that LDG was negligent. 
 

California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents    
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents   
Thesaurus Directory  
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet | Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com |  Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission

People v. Bland (2002) 28 Cal.4th 313 (Bland).)