Court Opinion

ID: 9518606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:57:16.836156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:56.947369
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE LEWIS, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion treating the plaintiff’s statements as evidentiary, rather than as judicial, admissions. The majority properly cites the law, but then proceeds to carve out an exception for swiftly moving events. “A judicial admission is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement of a party about a concrete fact within that party’s peculiar knowledge.” (Hansen v. Ruby Construction Co. (1987), 155 Ill. App. 3d 475, 480, 508 N.E.2d 301, 303.) Insofar as discovery is concerned, answers to interrogatories and testimony in evidence and discovery depositions may be treated as judicial admissions. Van’s Material Co. v. Department of Revenue (1989), 131 Ill. 2d 196, 545 N.E.2d 695; Hansen v. Ruby Construction Co. (1987), 164 Ill. App. 3d 884, 518 N.E.2d 354. The majority states correctly that the rule applies only when a party’s testimony taken as a whole is unequivocal. I believe that his testimony in the discovery deposition, taken as a whole, is unequivocal. The law is also clear that, having made judicial admissions so adverse to his own claims, the plaintiff cannot effectively contradict them by attempting to adopt inconsistent evidence which might be produced by other witnesses. Hansen, 164 Ill. App. 3d 884, 518 N.E.2d 354; Tom Olesker’s Exciting World of Fashion, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (1979), 71 Ill. App. 3d 562, 390 N.E.2d 60. Finley v. Mercer County (1988), 172 Ill. App. 3d 30, 526 N.E.2d 635, and Van’s Material Co. (131 Ill. 2d 196, 545 N.E.2d 695), also strongly support my position. McCormack v. Haan (1960), 20 Ill. 2d 75, 169 N.E.2d 239, relied upon by the majority, is inapposite. In that case the court found that even though the statement of plaintiff was a judicial admission, it did not follow that he was exonerated from responsibility because it was clear that he had other duties to perform from which the jury could find liability. I would affirm the order of the circuit court granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment.