442 P.3d 1155
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Maria (Sister) drove her brother Luis (Luna) to work; their car was struck at a traffic-light-controlled intersection and Luna was injured. Because cars entered perpendicular approaches, both drivers could not have had a green simultaneously.
- Luna sued both the other driver (Driver) and Sister for negligence; Driver later settled and was dismissed.
- In two sworn depositions (through a Spanish interpreter), Luna repeatedly and unequivocally testified that the light was green for Sister when they entered the intersection and that he had "no problems" with Sister’s driving. Sister and Driver also testified they each had a green light when entering.
- Sister moved for summary judgment; the district court treated Luna’s deposition statements as judicial admissions and granted summary judgment for Sister. Luna also sought an order requiring Sister to pay hourly fees of his treating physicians for depositions; the court denied that discovery request.
- On appeal, the court considered (1) whether certain deposition statements can be binding judicial admissions; (2) whether summary judgment was proper given Luna’s admissions; and (3) whether rule 26 requires the deposing party to pay non-retained experts’ professional deposition fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Luna) | Defendant's Argument (Sister) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sworn deposition statements can be binding judicial admissions | Deposition testimony is ordinary evidence a jury may disbelieve; should not be conclusive | Unequivocal sworn deposition statements about facts should be binding to avoid wasting judicial resources and prevent perjury | A party’s sworn deposition statements may be binding judicial admissions if four factors are met: (1) under oath in the proceeding; (2) clear and unequivocal; (3) factual and within personal knowledge; (4) giving conclusive effect aligns with public policy |
| Whether Luna’s statement that the light was green is a judicial admission | Testimony should be treated as ordinary evidence and may be contradicted by others | Luna’s repeated, unequivocal under-oath statements that the light was green are judicial admissions | Held: Luna’s statements that the light was green meet the four-factor test and are binding judicial admissions |
| Whether Luna’s statement that he had “no problems” with Sister’s driving is a judicial admission | That statement should be binding as an admission absolving Sister | That statement is ambiguous and more an opinion than a fact within Luna’s personal knowledge | Held: The “no problems” testimony is equivocal and opinion-like; it is not a binding judicial admission |
| Whether Sister must pay hourly professional fees for non-retained treating physicians deposed by her under Utah R. Civ. P. 26 | Rule 26(a)(4)(B) requires the deposing party to pay expert attendance fees | Rule 26(a)(4)(B) applies to retained experts only; no rule mandates payment of non-retained experts’ professional fees—allocation is within the court’s discretion | Held: Rule 26(a)(4)(B) applies to retained experts; no rule requires Sister to pay non-retained experts’ hourly fees and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Luna’s discovery request |
Key Cases Cited
- Webster v. Sill, 675 P.2d 1170 (Utah 1983) (deposition admissions may be binding absent plausible explanation for discrepancy)
- Baldwin v. Vantage Corp., 676 P.2d 413 (Utah 1984) (admissions in pleadings are judicial admissions normally conclusive)
- Hansen v. Ruby Constr. Co., 508 N.E.2d 301 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (unequivocal deposition assertions may constitute binding judicial admissions)
- Aguirre v. Vasquez, 225 S.W.3d 744 (Tex. App. 2007) (sets out criteria for treating deposition statements as conclusive judicial admissions)
- Yockey v. State, 540 N.W.2d 418 (Iowa 1995) (unequivocal deposition testimony can be an informal judicial admission)
- Keller v. Martinez, 318 P.3d 1147 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (a driver with a green light still owes a duty of reasonable care)