Kinserlow v. CMI Corp., Bid-Well Div.

Citation. 217 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2000)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation217 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2000)

Brief Fact Summary.

Kinserlow sued CMI Corp., Bid-Well Div. when he was injured when he fell from a work bridge that he believed to be manufactured by CMI Corp., Bid-Well Div.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Judgment as a matter of law is proper if a party has been fully heard on an issue and no reasonable jury would find for that party on the claim.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

We disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe.

View Full Point of Law

Kinserlow, an employee of Fred Weber, Inc. (FWI), was injured when he fell from a work bridge that had no markings. Kinserlow sued CMI Coporation, Bid-Well Division (CMI), because they produced similar work bridges. SMI moved for judgment as a matter of law (JNOV) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). JNOV was granted for CMI.

Issue.

Whether judgment as a matter of law proper if a party has been fully heard on an issue and no reasonable jury would find for that party on the claim?

Held.

Yes. The grant of JNOV to CMI is affirmed. Kinserlow does not provide reasonable evidence that CMI manufactured the work bridge. CMI’s evidence that Gomaco was the only manufacturer of tapered-end work bridges and that they did not begin to insert metal triangles until 1984 was uncontested.

Discussion.

Judgment as a matter of law is proper if a party has been fully heard on an issue and no reasonable jury would find for that party on the claim. JNOV is proper when a reasonable party will not find for one of the parties.