Opinion ID: 2461938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Judicial admission

Text: As Reyburn's owner, Stuart testified at trial about the work performed by Reyburn under the subcontract. He described the process of final grading and was asked whether he was aware of the drainage system for the retaining walls. Stuart responded that there's no specific verbiage in the contract talking about drainage of walls . . . and based on what I've seen now, you know, there was some head joints [(drainage openings) in] some places and none other places. He was also unsure whether there was some other type of mechanical drainage system in place, therefore, he was uncertain as to the drainage system applied to the retaining walls. Plaster's counsel next asked Stuart about his standard practices when grading: Q: Okay. So is it your normal practice on any job to make sure, for instance, if you're going to do grading where you're actually putting dirt against a wall, that you're not covering up whatever drainage scheme is in place? A: That would be a normal practice. But what you need to understand is we're not block wall experts. We don'tthat's not ourthat's not our scope of work. I mean, we are there per contract, and per contract states we want four inches of topsoil over the entire lot. So the lots are inspected by the city. They're inspected by the supervi[sor]. That's [another contractor's] job. So if there was an issue at hand, you know, with us potentially [blocking] head joints, that would have been an easy fix. But I think the thing that I need to stress is, is if there was dirt covering a head joint, dirt is not waterproof. I mean, it would still allow for the water to drain because we're just putting in sand. We're not compacting, nothing. We're just laying sand. So if I had any sand over a head joint or partially blocking a head joint, the head joint would still be able to drain. Stuart also testified that, as a general rule, a subcontractor should not cover drainage openings. Plaster's counsel then asked Stuart: Q.: [I]f you and [Plaster] covered upyou know, raised the dirt in the upper lot above the waterproofing, that would be a mistake, right? A.: Yes. Q.: And if you and Plaster raised the dirt up on the lower lot above the weep holes or the open head joints, that would be a mistake, correct? A.: That's correct. Stuart then testified that he understood that Reyburn would be responsible to repair any work that was improper, but that he was uncertain about the legal implications of the indemnity clause. He ultimately testified that he understood that Reyburn would defend Plaster so long as Reyburn had proper notice of the defects and was given an opportunity to repair the problems. On cross-examination, Stuart testified that neither he nor Reyburn was ever notified that Reyburn had covered any drainage openings and that they had not received any complaints from Plaster or anyone else concerning Reyburn's work. Judicial admissions are defined as deliberate, clear, unequivocal statements by a party about a concrete fact within that party's knowledge. Smith v. Pavlovich, 394 Ill.App.3d 458, 333 Ill.Dec. 446, 914 N.E.2d 1258, 1267 (2009). What constitutes a judicial admission should be determined by the circumstances of each case and evaluated in relation to the other testimony presented in order to prevent disposing of a case based on an unintended statement made by a nervous party. Id., 333 Ill.Dec. 446, 914 N.E.2d at 1268. The caselaw cited by Reyburn, which is unchallenged by Plaster, similarly instructs that oral testimony should not be considered a judicial admission but, rather, should be evaluated as evidence and considered in context with any other testimony. See Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc., 128 Cal. App.4th 1510, 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 826, 833 (2005) (reasoning that concessions in pleadings are judicial admissions whereas oral testimony subject to traditional impeachment is construed as evidence); Conagra, Inc. v. Nierenberg, 301 Mont. 55, 7 P.3d 369, 380 (2000) (holding that oral responses to aggressive examination by trained lawyers will not be construed as a judicial admission). In contrast to judicial admissions, there are also evidentiary admissions, which occur when a testifying party admits a fact which is adverse to his claim or defense. Keller v. U.S., 58 F.3d 1194, 1199 n. 8 (7th Cir.1995). Evidentiary admissions may be controverted or explained by the party. Id. Stuart's oral testimony was not a clear, unequivocal statement of liability nor did it admit a fact adverse to Reyburn's claims. Rather, Stuart's testimony was responsive to hypothetical conditions or practices. He did not deliberately, clearly, and unequivocally testify that Reyburn covered any drainage openings or that any damages arose from Reyburn's work. Thus, we conclude that the district court erred when it construed Stuart's testimony as an admission of liability; Stuart's testimony was neither a judicial or evidentiary admission.