Question

Veronica files suit against Car Corp., claiming that a defect in the design of her car caused her

to lose control of her vehicle, resulting in injuries. Car Corp. moves for summary judgment on
the basis of its extensive safety testing. Because Veronica's expert witness presented a
conflicting report, the court denied summary judgment. At trial, however, Veronica's expert
witness conceded that Car Corp's studies demonstrated that the car did not have a design
defect. Confident that they would get a favorable verdict, Car Corp's attorneys decided not to
move for judgment as a matter of law prior to the verdict. Nevertheless, the jury rendered a
verdict for Veronica. At this point, which of the following is the best answer?
a-Car Corp. should move for summary judgment
b-Car Corp. should move for judgment as a matter of law
c-Car Corp. should move for a new trial
d-Car Corp. is bound by the jury's verdict

Answer 1

Car Corp. should move for a new trial as the jury rendered a verdict for Veronica despite Car Corp's strong defense.

Step-by-step explanation:

Car Corp. should move for a new trial.

In this case, Car Corp. had a strong basis for summary judgment based on its extensive safety testing. However, the court denied summary judgment because Veronica's expert witness presented a conflicting report. At trial, Car Corp's attorneys decided not to move for judgment as a matter of law because they were confident they would receive a favorable verdict. However, the jury rendered a verdict for Veronica, which may have been influenced by the concession of Veronica's expert witness that Car Corp's studies demonstrated that the car did not have a design defect. Therefore, Car Corp. should move for a new trial to challenge the jury's verdict.