Directed Verdicts vs. Directed Findings

The following article was published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, November 9, 2015.  https://chicagolawbulletin.com/

What do you call a motion for a judgment in the defendant's favor filed at the close of the plaintiff's case in a bench trial? If you think it's a motion for a directed verdict, you're wrong.

In Illinois, a party moves for a directed verdict in a jury trial (735 ILCS 5/2-1202 (West 2014)) and a directed finding in a bench trial (735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2014)). By pointing out this distinction, I am not merely quibbling over nomenclature. The difference is important since the standard for ruling upon a motion for a directed verdict differs from the standard for ruling upon a motion for a directed finding—each motion raises different questions and requires different analyses.

When a party moves for a directed verdict in a jury trial, the trial court views all the evidence in an aspect most favorable to the opponent and grants the motion only if the evidence so overwhelmingly favors the movant that a verdict in the opponent's favor could never stand. Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., 37 Ill. 2d 494, 510 (1967). By viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, the court avoids invading the province of the jury. That is, in deciding a motion for a directed verdict, the court will not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, or weigh the evidence, since these matters are within the jury's province.

In a bench trial, however, the trial court, rather than a jury, is the trier of fact. As such, a motion for a directed finding is not governed by Pedrick, but by section 2-1110 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2014). Section 2-1110 provides that, in ruling on a motion for a directed finding, the court "shall weigh the evidence, considering the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and quality of the evidence." 735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2014). Consequently, the trial court does not view the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff.

Moreover, unlike a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court, in ruling on a section 2-1110 motion, must engage in a two-step analysis. First, the court must determine as a matter of law whether the plaintiff has presented a prima facie case. That is, did the plaintiff present some evidence on every element essential to the cause of action? Second, if the plaintiff has presented some evidence on each element, the court then must consider and weigh the totality of the evidence presented, including evidence which is favorable to the defendant. After weighing all the evidence, the court should determine, applying the standard of proof required for the underlying cause of action, whether sufficient evidence remains to establish the plaintiff's prima facie case.

The second step recognizes that even though the plaintiff has presented some evidence on every element of the cause of action, the trial court, as the weigher of evidence, might not necessarily find the evidence as to one or more of the elements to be convincing enough to qualify as proof by a preponderance of the evidence (or by whatever standard of proof applies to the matter). Distilled to its essence, the question before the court is "whether the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict if the defendant rests without adducing any evidence." Howard v. Firmand, 378 Ill. App. 3d 147, 154 (2007). If the plaintiff's evidence is unconvincing as it stands, even without the presentation of any evidence by the defendant, the court should grant the defendant's motion for judgment. On the other hand, if the weighing process does not negate any element of the prima facie case, the court should deny the defendant's motion and continue with the trial.

Although the content of a motion, not its title or label, determines its character, Illinois practitioners and courts consistently fail to distinguish directed verdicts from directed findings. This failure often leads to improper analysis of the issue and may result in an incorrect disposition. Practitioners can lead the charge by properly labeling their motion and identifying the appropriate standard.