When will a judge grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict?

After the jury's verdict for the plaintiff, the trial judge, as he is required to do upon a motion for a new trial, considered the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence, drew his own inferences, and made his independent conclusions therefrom. The fact that he considered the evidence sufficient to justify his denial of defendants' motions for nonsuit, for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict did not preclude the trial judge from granting defendants' motions for a new trial upon his own [145 Cal.App.2d 472] appraisal of the evidence. Woods v. Walker, 57 Cal.App.2d 968, 971, 136 P.2d 72; Kalfus v. Fraze, 136 Cal.App.2d 415, 430, 288 P.2d 967.

While appellant has urged the reversal on appeal on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the defendants' motions for new trial, he has failed to refer to any instance of such abuse in the record. Appellant cites and quotes from the decision in Petty v. Fowler, 102 Cal.App.2d 808, 229 P.2d 46. By that decision, however, an order granting a new trial after both the first and second trials had resulted in verdicts for defendants was affirmed.

An order granting a new trial will not be reversed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge is affirmatively shown or manifestly appears. Brooks v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 27 Cal.2d 305, 307, 163 P.2d 689. No such showing has been made in the instant action, and it would serve no useful purpose to discuss the many reasons shown by respondents why a new trial was properly granted.

Reviewing the order denying defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the decision on the former appeal reversing the judgment for defendants after nonsuit is the law of the case. The trial court is authorized to grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict only where, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, with every legitimate inference drawn in his favor, and disregarding all conflicting evidence, the record is insufficient to support the verdict for plaintiff. Rodabaugh v. Tekus, 39 Cal.2d 290, 291, 246 P.2d 663.