Title: Trotier v. Bassett

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Trotier v. Bassett (2001-273); 174 Vt. 520; 811 A.2d 166

[File 20-Aug-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                     SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO.  2001-273

                               MAY TERM, 2002


  John P. Trotier	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }
  Opal P. Bassett	               }
                                       }	DOCKET NO.  S0757-98 CnC


             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff John Trotier appeals from the trial court's denial of two of
  his motions - one for judgment as a matter of law and the other for a new
  trial - in this automobile negligence case.  On appeal, plaintiff argues
  that the court erred by not construing certain statements of defendant as
  judicial admissions, which would have established liability, and by
  excluding opinion testimony of an expert witness.  We affirm.

       The relevant facts of this case are not in dispute.  This personal
  injury action arose out of an automobile collision at the intersection of
  Route 7 and Route 22A in Ferrisburg, Vermont.  Plaintiff was a front-seat
  passenger in one of the cars driven by defendant Opal Bassett.  The other
  car was driven by Meggan Markowski.  Route 22A comes in from the west and
  ends at a T-shaped intersection with Route 7, which runs north and south. 
  On the day of the collision, Ms. Markowski was driving south on Route 7 and
  had the right-of-way.  Defendant, traveling east on Route 22A, approached
  the intersection and attempted to make a left hand turn onto Route 7 going
  north.  While defendant's car was in the intersection, Ms. Markowski's car
  collided with it, causing serious damage to both cars and physical injury
  to plaintiff.  At the scene of the accident, Sgt. Genova of the Vermont
  State Police interviewed defendant and Ms. Markowski and drew a rough map
  of the accident scene.  Ms. Markowski's car left skid marks when she tried
  to avoid hitting defendant's vehicle, but Sgt. Genova did not measure the
  length of them.
        
       Plaintiff sued both defendant and Ms. Markowski, and Ms. Markowski
  also sued defendant.  The trial court consolidated the three cases.  Ms.
  Markowski moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim against her,
  which plaintiff did not oppose.  The only opposition came from defendant
  who intervened to oppose the motion.  Despite that opposition, the court
  granted the motion and dismissed plaintiff's claims against Ms. Markowski. 
  Plaintiff's case against defendant then went to trial by jury on November
  15 and 16, 2000, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of 

 

  defendant.  Plaintiff filed motions for judgment as a matter of law and, in
  the alternative, for a new trial.  The trial court denied both motions.

       On appeal, plaintiff makes two arguments.  First, he argues that
  certain statements made by defendant in her deposition and at trial
  constitute judicial admissions of liability.  Furthermore, plaintiff
  contends that because defendant admitted liability and was the only
  remaining defendant in the consolidated case, the court erred by not
  granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of plaintiff before the issue
  reached the jury.

       The first statement in question was made in defendant's deposition. 
  During the deposition, defendant said that she "had to have been at fault
  to some degree" for the accident.  Plaintiff questioned defendant at trial
  about this answer:

    Q: Ms. Bassett, you testified that you thought that both of you
    were at fault and Meggan Markowski was at fault.
    A: Yes, I could have been at the time.
    Q: And you felt that Ms. Markowski should have gone to the right,
    pulled to the right?
    A: Right.
    Q: And you believe that this accident is partially your fault
    because you should have estimated her speed before you attempted
    to make the left-hand turn?
                        MR. BREDICE: Objection.
    A: That was the thought I had.  That was not like yes or no.
                         THE COURT: Overruled.
    Q: I'm sorry, what was your answer?
    A: Yes, I did say that at the time, but that was general
    conversation.  We both had to have been at fault to some degree.

  During cross-examination by defendant's own attorney, defendant read her
  deposition testimony word for word to the jury: "I'm a odd duck, I guess. 
  I would almost say it could be both our faults, but ultimately I think she
  could have done better in passing me by staying further over to the right."
        
       Whether defendant's statements constituted a judicial admission of
  liability is a question of law.  We review questions of law de novo.  State
  v. Pollander, 167 Vt. 301, 304,