# Anderson v. Raymond Corporation

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · July 12, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10646085

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** July 12, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10646085

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ADELAIDA ANDERSON,
individually, and as Administrator
of the Estate of Jeffrey Lee
Anderson, Deceased,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 19-CV-00800

THE RAYMOND CORPORATION,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

McGLYNN, District Judge:
Defendant Raymond Corporation has filed a renewed Motion for judgment as
a matter of law and for new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. (Doc. 415).
On July 11, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the motion and the parties provided
additional argument. (Doc. 426)
Under Rule 50, a party may make a motion for judgment as a matter of law
any time before the case is submitted to the jury. FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a)(2). No later
than 28 days after the entry of judgment, the movant may file a renewed motion for
judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 50(b). Rule 50 specifically allows parties
to file a motion for new trial under Rule 59 contemporaneously with a renewal of their
motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50. FED. R. CIV. P. 50(b).
Rule 50 allows a district court to enter judgment against a party who has been
fully heard on an issue during a jury trial if a “reasonable jury would not have a
legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” FED. R. CIV. P.
50(b). In weighing a Rule 50 motion, the “court construes the evidence strictly in favor
of the party who prevailed before the jury and examines the evidence only to
determine whether the jury’s verdict could reasonably be based on that evidence.”
Passananti v. Cook County, 689 F.3d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Tart v. Illinois

Power Co., 366 F.3d 461, 464 (7th Cir. 2004)).
The Court must not “make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.”
Passananti, 689 F.3d at 659 (citing Waite v. Board of Trustees of Illinois Comm.
College Dist. No. 508, 408 F.3d 339, 343 (7th Cir. 2005)). Additionally, “the court ‘must
disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury [was] not required
to believe.’” Id. (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133,

150-151 (2000)). “Because the Rule 50(b) motion is only a renewal of the preverdict
motion, it can be granted only on grounds advanced in the preverdict motion.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 50(b), comm. note (2006 amend.).
Raymond argued that no reasonable juror could find for Plaintiff Adelaida
Anderson. Raymond contended that Anderson was permitted to bolster her case with
irrelevant, improper, and prejudicial evidence. Raymond also disagreed with the
Court’s questioning of one of its expert witnesses, stating that it was improper and

prejudicial. Last, Raymond argued that the jury’s award for increased future harm
was unsupported.
As the Court discussed at the hearing, considering all of the arguments
presented, the evidence in the record could properly support the verdict returned by
the jury. Additionally, there is no evidence that the jury was presented with
inaccurate or misleading evidence favoring Anderson that weighs in favor of granting
Raymond a new trial. Furthermore, the Court’s questioning was not improper or
prejudicial. See Kapelanski v. Johnson, 390 F.3d 525, 535 (7th Cir. 2004). Judicial
questioning is particularly appropriate where, as here, the witness was not answering
questions “as asked” and the jury was instructed on inferences from the questioning.

Id. Moreover, the jury was properly instructed on increased future harm and the
Court will not disturb its award based on the evidence presented. For all these
reasons, Raymond’s renewed Motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new
trial (Doc. 415) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 12, 2024

s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10646085. Public record. Not legal advice.