Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp. - 49 Ohio St. 3d 93, 551 N.E.2d 172 (1990)

Rule:

The primary difference between a directed verdict motion and a Ohio R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) motion is procedural: An Ohio R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) motion is made, heard and determined before trial on application of any party, while a directed verdict motion is made at trial and decided on the evidence that has been admitted

Facts:

Appellee, a nonsupervisory employee of appellant, General Motors Corporation, submitted a written suggestion to appellee, describing and recommending the adoption of certain procedures to reduce the amount of scrap in the manufacturing and testing of products in his department. Appellee’s suggestion was returned to him for being a “duplicate suggestion.” The duplicate suggestion was made by a supervisory employee at appellant. The supervisory employee was awarded money for the suggestion. Following an unsuccessful attempt to have the appellant’s management to revoke the award to the supervisory employee, appellee filed suit against the appellants, alleging conversion. Appellants sought review of the appellate court's decision construing the trial court's action as response to appellant's motion to dismiss, rather than as a response to appellant's directed verdict motion. Appellants made a motion at the end of plaintiff's case in the trial court. The appellate court considered the trial court's response to the motion as one to dismiss pursuant to Ohio R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6).

Issue:

Did the appellate court err in construing appellants’ motion as one to dismiss? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and held that the appellate court erred in construing the motion as one to dismiss. Appellant's motion was for a directed verdict because it was made after the trial began. Although the trial court misspoke in ruling on the motion, a closer examination of the entire record by appellate court would have revealed that the trial court viewed the motion as one for a directed verdict. The idea submitted by an employee through the employee suggestion plan was not in legally protected form and could not have been the basis of a suit for conversion.