Plaintiff sued Defendant for personal injuries after he fell from a workbridge he believed Defendant manufactured.
In a motion for judgment as a matter of law, the nonmoving party is only entitled to the benefit of reasonable inferences.
Kinserlow (Plaintiff), a cement mason, sued CMI Corporation, Bid-Well Division (Defendant) for personal injuries after he fell from a workbridge presumably manufactured by the Defendant. Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, on the basis that they did not manufacture the workbridge.
Is judgment as a matter of law proper when a court finds no reasonable inference favoring the position of the nonmoving party?
Yes, judgment as a matter of law is proper. The district court is affirmed.
The Court determined that the evidence did not support a reasonable inference that Defendant had manufactured the workbridge.