Singh v. Sidhu

For a party to successfully argue for the reversal of a court's judgment on the basis of a jury's lack of evidence for their conclusion, the party must show that the jury substantially affected their rights.

Convenience store president (President) appealed the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). After noticing a store's decreased profitability, the president hired an investigator. The investigator discovered that a store manager was stealing beer. The investigator concluded it was theft and without consulting the president, completed a citizen’s arrest against the store manager. The store manager successfully asserted a claim of false-arrest and a jury found the president guilty. The president appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for JNOV on claims of false arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The president challenged the lower court’s holding, alleging his motion JNOV was wrongly denied. The president argued that the two ways for him to be found liable were not established by evidence, as the store manager was unable to show (1) the investigator was acting as an agent or (2) the investigator was acting as an independent contractor whose actions were ratified by the the president. The court held that though the general form given to the jury did not show which of the two ways the president was found liable for the investigators actions, it did not substantially affect the president's rights. Affirmed