The issue before the court is whether the defendant’s (Marley) product was the proximate cause of the plaintiff (Weisgram) mother’s death.
I believe that Weigram has a good reason for a new trial. The defendant uses “motion for a directed verdict (63; Ch. 3) to request a judgement favor because the defendant believes the testimony of the expert witness from Weisgram is not scientifically sound. However, like the case from Barabin v. Astenjohnson, INC., the judge allowed jury to determine if the expert witness is credible.
Even though the jury found for Weisgram, Marley still made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. However, I don’t know why the just overturn the verdict. If the judge found the testimony of the expert witness