Source: https://www.rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com/motion-8-plaintiff-s-motion-for-summary-judgement-in-car-acciden.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 17:03:58+00:00

Document:
c. Failed to keep a proper lookout for the vehicle he was operating to avoid a collision, in violation of 625 ILCS 5/11-601(a).
Summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings, depositions and admissions on file together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c); Abrams v. City of Chicago, 211 Ill.2d 251, 257 (2004). A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must present a factual basis which would arguably entitle him to a judgment.” Allegro Service, Ltd. v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority, 172 Ill. 2d 243, 256 (1996).
Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 212(a)(2), discovery depositions can be used as an admission made by a party or by an officer or agent of a party in the same manner and to the same extent as any other admission made by that person. 134 Ill.2d R. 212. The standard for whether an assertion made during a deposition constitutes a binding judicial admission is whether said assertion is unequivocal Hansen v. Ruby Constr. Co., 155 Ill. App. 3d 475, 480 (1st Dist. 1987). First and foremost, it should be noted that it has been established that the use of the term “fault” does not constitute a legal conclusion which is inadmissible as an admission. Wright v. Stokes, 167 Ill. App. 3d 887 (5th Dist. 1988). Rather, a party's statement that he may have been at fault can constitute an admission. Asher v. Stromberg, 78 Ill.App.2d 267 (1st Dist. 1966).
“[T]he only thing I vividly remember at that point is I evidently dozed for a minute (Emphasis added). Tennes v. Tennes, 320 Ill. App. 19, 23 (1st Dist. 1943).
as far as he was concerned he may have been at fault and that he had an insurance policy of $ 10,(000) for malpractice” (Emphasis supplied). Asher v. Stromberg, 78 Ill.App.2d 267 (1st Dist. 1966).
It is important to note that in the instant case, an attorney for the Defendant was present during his deposition, and did not seek to supplement or clarify the Defendant's responses as to any additional circumstances. Chmielewski v. Kahlfeldt, 23 Ill.App.3d 129 (2d Dist. 1992). Based upon the forgoing, the Defendant's testimony that he “assumes” the accident was his fault should be determined to be unequivocal, and thus should qualify as a judicial admission under Supreme Court Rule 212(a)(2).
In addition to the forgoing, when asked whether Mr. Edgerson did anything wrong to cause this accident, the Defendant simply replied, “No”. (p. 35, line 13). There is no doubt that said testimony is unequivocal so that said testimony should qualify as a judicial admission under Supreme Court Rule 212(a)(2).
A party cannot create a factual dispute by contradicting a previously made judicial admission. Smith v. Ashley, 29 Ill.App.3d 932 (4th Dist. 1975). After making these admissions, a party may not create a genuine issue of material fact by taking contradictory positions, nor may he remove a factual question from consideration just to raise it anew when convenient. Hansen v. Ruby Constr. Co., 155 Ill. App 3d 475, 480 (1st Dist. 1987). The frequently stated purpose of the doctrine of judicial admissions is to eliminate the temptation to commit perjury. Schmahl v. A.V.C. Enterprises, Inc., 148 Ill.App.3d 324 (1st Dist. 1986). Accordingly the Defendant's admissions that he assumes the subject automobile collision was his fault and that Mr. Edgerson did nothing wrong to cause the subject automobile collision removed any genuine issue of fact regarding liability in the subject claim. Due to the fact there is no genuine as to any material fact regarding liability, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c); Abrams v. City of Chicago, 211 Ill.2d 251, 257 (2004).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.