Bilesky v. Shopko Stores Operating Co., LLC, 2014 MT 300

Gloria Bilesky sues Shopko Stores Operating Co. for a slip-and-fall in Kalispell, MT on Jan 30, 2011.
Video footage of the incident was destroyed/overwritten; Shopko initially claimed no footage existed.
Bilesky sought sanctions for spoliation and listed specific facts the video allegedly would have shown.
Shopko’s Response Brief stated it would not dispute some points the video would have shown and disputed others.
Bilesky moved to read Shopko’s asserted points as judicial admissions to the jury; the district court denied this.
The district court later allowed contrary testimony and denied Bilesky’s request for admissions to be read to the jury; Bilesky appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shopko’s statements were judicial admissions	Shopko conceded points; statements amruta express waiver	Statements were conditional offers to admit if sanctions applied	Statements were judicial admissions and should be read to the jury
Whether the district court abused its discretion in treating the statements as non-admissions	Discretion was misapplied; context supports admissions	Existence of witnesses and testimony could complement admissions	District court abused discretion; should have treated as admissions
Remedial consequence	Bilesky entitled to verdict influence based on admissions	Court should avoid harsh sanctions unless unequivocal admissions	Reversed and remanded for new trial consistent with the opinion

Kohne v. Yost, 250 Mont. 109 (1991) (purpose and scope of judicial admissions; intentional self-contradiction concerns)
Weaver v. State, 2013 MT 247, 371 Mont. 476, 310 P.3d 495 (2013 MT) (context of alternative claims; discretion to limit admissions)
Hart v. Hart, 2011 MT 102, 360 Mont. 308, 258 P.3d 389 (2011 MT) (written responses to pleadings may be judicial admissions if facts)