What does a directed verdict signify in a trial?

A directed verdict is a ruling by the judge during a trial that terminates the case or a specific claim because there is insufficient evidence to support a reasonable jury's decision. It indicates that, based on the evidentiary presentation, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable jury could find in favor of that party.

This ruling often occurs after the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence but before the matter is submitted to the jury. The judge concludes that the evidence presented is lacking in a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to reasonably rule in favor of the plaintiff. Thus, option B accurately captures the essence of what a directed verdict signifies in a trial setting.

The other options do not accurately reflect the purpose or implications of a directed verdict. There might be instances where a plaintiff fails to present evidence, but a directed verdict pertains specifically to the lack of sufficient evidence to allow jury deliberation, not merely the absence of any evidence. Similarly, suggesting that a new trial must be held or that a settlement should be pursued does not align with the procedural implications of a directed verdict.