When is a defendant entitled to a directed verdict in a negligence action?

In a negligence action, a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the plaintiff fails to present sufficient evidence to support their case. A directed verdict is a ruling by the judge that the jury must accept as true the evidence presented and that there is no legally sufficient basis for a jury to reach a different conclusion.

In the context of negligence, the plaintiff must prove all four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. If the plaintiff fails to establish any of these elements during their case in chief, meaning they do not provide enough evidence for those elements, a directed verdict in favor of the defendant is appropriate. This ensures that the defendant is not subjected to a trial on a claim that lacks merit due to insufficient evidence from the plaintiff.

Other options do not accurately capture the conditions under which a directed verdict would be granted. For instance, while no evidence presented at trial could lead to a directed verdict, the essence of the answer here lies in the plaintiff's failure to meet their burden of proof. Simply choosing to withdraw or proving all elements of negligence does not provide grounds for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant; rather, it would typically indicate the continuation or conclusion of proceedings and the obligation of the plaintiff to establish their case.