Opinion ID: 2599649
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The reasonable grounds exception excuses Dobos's failure to admit negligence or causation.

Text: The reasonable grounds exception [18] applies to Dobos's failure to admit his negligence and causation. The issue is whether Dobos acted reasonably in believing that he might prevail. [19] This is an objective test; courts look at the record to see if there was a basis for concluding that he would prevail. [20] That the evidence was ultimately admitted or the factual admission ultimately proven does not mean that it was unreasonable not to concede it. [21]
Ingersoll argues that if Dobos had admitted his negligence when she sent him the request for admission, she would not have had to go to trial at all. She therefore argues that she is entitled to the cost of the entire trial. However, even though the evidence against Dobos was strong, it was not so compelling that he had a duty to admit that he was negligent. Whether Dobos was negligent was a question of fact properly determined by the jury. [22] At the time that Dobos answered the request for admission of his negligence, he could reasonably have believed that he would prevail on the negligence issue. [23] From his perspective, he was driving slowly and carefully. Furthermore, Ingersoll had testified at her deposition that she was running when the car hit her; it was not until the trial that she testified that she had been walking. Because there was a factual dispute as to whether Dobos was negligent, he was not required to admit his negligence when the admission was requested. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Rule 37 fees based on Dobos's failure to admit his negligence.
Dobos's refusal to admit to causation was also reasonable. Request for Admission No. 5 asked Dobos to admit that his negligence caused Ingersoll's injuries. Since he reasonably denied negligence when its admission was specifically requested, it was also reasonable to deny negligence when its admission was requested in combination with causation. Requests for Admission Nos. 6-9 are connected to Request for Admission No. 5, so conceding any of these would also concede negligence. In addition, Dobos may have reasonably believed that Ingersoll's future earnings potential was not decreased and that she would not need further surgery. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the reasonable grounds exception applied to the causation issues.