Opinion ID: 2590180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Defendants' Interrogatory Answer Is Admissible to Show the Existence of a Duty of Care.

Text: D.P. argues that the superior court erred by refusing to characterize the defendants' interrogatory answer as an admission of both the existence of a duty and the breach of that duty. Specifically, D.P. asserts that the court erred by labeling this evidence as discovery rather than proof, arguing that it should have been weighed in the analysis of defendants' motion for a directed verdict. Civil Rule 33(c) provides that answers to interrogatories may be used to the extent permitted by the rules of evidence. The defendants' answer in the present case bears directly upon the hospital's duty of care and should have been admitted for that purpose. We therefore hold that the interrogatory answer is admissible on the issue of the defendants' duty of care. [19]