Every case is different – an adage sometimes declared when distinguishing facts of one case to the next. This approach nearly always leads to case-specific strategy considerations and, for a trial lawyer, many times the concern is how a jury will receive the evidence at trial.
In some lawsuits, particularly personal injury or wrongful death cases, liability might be so clear that a lawyer or their client might consider admitting fault and instead choose to argue about causation or damages. Often, considerations here may include the length or cost of trial, whether the evidence establishing liability will anger or inflame a jury, avoiding cost of retaining experts, and other situations. Suffice to say, there can be many case-specific reasons for whether to do so.
However, recently, a Missouri Appellate Court ruled that an admission of fault does not automatically preclude admission of evidence of the underlying tortious conduct. In Marlayna Kenney v. Kailey K. Myers, 674 S.W.3d 139 (Mo. App. WD 2023), in a wrongful death claim, the court reaffirmed the general rule in Missouri as to a judicial admission, noting that a party is not required to accept a judicial admission of his adversary, but may insist on proving the fact. A party bearing the burden of proof is not bound to a party’s admission but may instead elect to present evidence to prove the issue at a jury trial.
The Kenney court went on to state, “Even when a defendant makes an unqualified admission of liability, a plaintiff has the right to introduce evidence relevant to the issue of liability. A plaintiff has the right to present to the jury, in his own way, competent and relevant evidence to show all the circumstances attending to the accident. To allow a defendant to substitute a naked admission for a full picture of the events may rob the evidence of much of its fair and legitimate weight.”
The basic facts in Kenney were as follows: The mother of a deceased minor sued the defendant driver following an accident on Interstate 70 in Jackson County, Missouri that left the mother’s son dead and her minor daughter injured. In his Answer, the defendant driver denied allegations of negligence with his initial response to the Petition, but later amended the Answer and, in response to the plaintiff’s allegations that the driver failed to exercise the highest degree of care, stated, “[Driver] admits only that she was at fault in causing the accident.” A stipulation was later filed that read, “(1) “Defendant has admitted fault for the accident, while reserving all defenses to the nature and extent of damages claimed by [Plaintiffs];” (2) Plaintiffs “waived and dismiss their claims for aggravated circumstances and punitive damages;” and (3) the case would be tried by the bench.”
In pretrial motions, the defendant sought to exclude evidence and argument concerning the cause of the accident because she had filed admissions of fault for the accident and, therefore there was “no liability issue for the court to decide.” The trial court denied the motion. During trial, evidence of fault and the admission were presented by the plaintiff, over objection of the defendant. A verdict was returned in favor of the plaintiff for $10 million as to the death claim and nearly $400,000 on the injury claim.
On appeal, the court noted that “[defendant] acknowledges that the general rule is still followed in Missouri, but she argues that she ‘clearly, unequivocally, and without qualification’ admitted she was at fault in causing the accident, and that Missouri courts recognize that ‘there may be circumstances when an unequivocal and full admission of liability may leave only the issue of damages for a jury, but such admission must be clear.’”
The court found that the defendant’s admission was not clear and unequivocal. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that while the defendant only admitted fault in causing the accident, but that she denied the specific allegations of tortious conduct set forth in the petition, which included the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendant was “negligent in at least one of several ways: failing to keep a careful lookout; driving too fast for conditions; operating the vehicle while distracted; operating the vehicle in an impaired manner; operating the vehicle while texting or utilizing her cell phone; failing to slow down, brake, or avoid a collision; and failing to keep control of the vehicle.”
Further, the stipulation only stipulated to fault, it did not pronounce that the defendant’s admission was clear, full, and unequivocal, and that no evidence relating to the cause of the accident would be admitted. Because the defendant did not admit the specific grounds of liability in the Petition, the court found there was not a clear, full, and unequivocal admission of liability which could permit the trial court to stray from Missouri’s general rule.
Setting aside the issue of a clear admission of fault, the court went on to state, “Even when a defendant makes an unqualified admission of liability, a plaintiff has the right to introduce evidence relevant to the issue of liability.” The court noted that a plaintiff has the right to present to the jury, in his own way, competent and relevant evidence to show all the circumstances attending [to] the accident.”
Despite this ruling, parties in a lawsuit can still stipulate to limited evidence – an activity which typically occurs at trial. Still, the Kenney decision presents a reminder that being tedious may be necessary. Indeed, every case is different and there should always be a discussion with the client before any such strategy decision is made.