Articles

New Case on Inadmissibility of Request for Admission Denials

There are cases where it is clear from relatively objective evidence – video of the accident, downloaded vehicle and engine data, cell phone records, medical records - that your client, the commercial driver, ran the red light, was speeding, was texting/talking on the cell phone or was intoxicated at the time of an accident. More and more accidents are captured on surveillance, intersection and DriveCam video cameras, more vehicles in accidents have Event Data Recorders, ECMs and GPS systems showing vehicle speed, throttle position and brakes application, more cell phone records are available showing exactly when calls or texts were made, and medical records showing alcohol and drug impairment will always be available.

In these cases where the facts are bad for the defense, plaintiffs frequently propound Requests for Admissions asking the defendant driver to admit that he ran the red light, or was speeding, or was texting/talking on his cell phone, or was drunk at the time of the collision. Further RFAs ask the driver to admit that his actions were negligent, admit that his negligence caused the accident, and admit that it caused the personal injuries or wrongful death. Plaintiffs propound these RFAs for several reasons: the defense might admit negligence and causation and narrow trial to the sole issue of damages; additional costs and some experts fees might be recoverable at trial to prove the denials (if your state has such a statute, as California does); and denials can be used by plaintiffs to inflame the jury at trial.

The compelling evidence sometimes prompts a decision by the defense to admit liability, but if it does not, the usual practice for the defense is to deny the RFAs in discovery and make the plaintiff prove at trial the facts and conclusions addressed in the RFAs. If the evidence is as compelling as it appears, the jury may conclude that the defendant ran the red light or was speeding or was texting at the time of the accident, and the defense may lose the liability case regardless of the denial. However, for some plaintiff’s counsel, this is not enough. They want to use the RFA denials to spice up their case and get the jury angry at the defense. In these situations, plaintiffs cross-examine the defendant driver on the denials of facts and conclusions obviously proved by the evidence. In closing argument, plaintiffs then argue that the defense lied throughout the case, contested evidence which should not have been disputed, and forced the case to go to trial. This argument has been known to inflame the jury, and result in higher damage awards.

A new case in California, Gonsalves v. Li (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1406 restricts the use of RFA denials at trial. In Gonsalves, plaintiff was a salesperson for a car dealership and he was injured when a customer crashed a new BMW during a test drive. Gonsalves sued, alleging that Li was negligent. A jury found Li was negligent and awarded Gonsalves $1.2 million in damages. Li appealed arguing the trial court committed numerous evidentiary errors including admitting into evidence the full sets of the RFAs and special interrogatories that asked Li to explain any denials to the RFAs, as well as Li’s responses to both.

The Court of Appeal held denials of RFAs are not admissible evidence in a case where a party’s litigation conduct is not directly in issue. According to the Court, the questions regarding Li’s denials to RFAs were legal contention questions. “Li was asked to explain ‘by memory and on the spot’ and without the ability to consult with his attorney why he took the legal position that he could not admit or deny certain RFAs without further inquiry.” (Gonsalves at pp. 1415-1416.) The Court further held that the RFAs were not permissible for impeachment purposes because litigation conduct is not relevant evidence at trial. (Id. at p. 1417.) As such the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for a new trial.

In conclusion, the Gonsalves case prevents plaintiffs from using denials to RFAs during trial in an ordinary case, i.e. a case where a party’s litigation conduct is not directly in issue, and this allows defendants to deny RFAs in discovery without fear that the denials will later be used against them at trial. Massachusetts, Florida, Missouri and Texas have similar laws rejecting the admissibility of RFA denials at trial in most situations.

Related Practices

• Transportation

Related Attorneys