Tort Law

Brien Roche Law > Tort Law Resources > Tort Case Law > Tort Law Cases – A > Admissions Miscellaneous Cases Summarized By Accident Lawyer

Admissions Miscellaneous Cases Summarized By Accident Lawyer

This page within Virginia Tort Case Law is a compilation of cases reported by the Virginia Supreme Court and summarized by Brien Roche dealing with the topic of Admissions Miscellaneous and the related topic of personal injury.  For more information on admissions see the page on Wikipedia.

Admissions Miscellaneous-Statutes

See Va. Code § 8.01-420.2, which allows recorded telephone conversations with parts thereof containing admissions which if true would constitute commission of crime by one party against other to be admitted in civil action between conversants, except for divorce action, provided one of parties knew conversation was being recorded and the criminal conduct discussed forms basis for action.

Admissions Miscellaneous-Cases

2002 Jones v. Ford Motor Co., 263 Va. 237, 559 S.E.2d 592.

Products liability case alleging sudden acceleration of Ford vehicle. Ford made judicial admission that prior to manufacture of vehicle in question and prior to plaintiff’s accident, it had notice of other claims of sudden unintended acceleration events from other drivers of vehicles manufactured by Ford. What Ford did not admit was that the sudden acceleration was due to cruise control problems. Ford attempted to use that judicial admission to bar testimony of other persons as to sudden acceleration problems for the purpose of giving notice to Ford of sudden acceleration problems relating to cruise control. That was an error by trial court. The judicial admission in question was of limited scope and was not bar to presentation of evidence of Ford having notice of sudden acceleration due to cruise control problems.

1989 General Motors Corp. v. Lupica, 237 Va. 516, 379 S.E.2d 311.

Admissions miscellaneous.To qualify as judicial admission, admission must conclusively establish fact in issue. It may not be thereafter qualified, explained, or rebutted.

1977 Holland v. Holland, 217 Va. 874, 234 S.E.2d 65.

Admissions miscellaneous.Clear and unequivocal testimony from plaintiff that defendant did nothing wrong was judicial admission, which was binding on her and she may not recover.

1976 Baines v. Parker, 217 Va. 100, 225 S.E.2d 403.

Admissions miscellaneous.Plaintiff should not be allowed to profit at defendant’s expense by contradicting her own sworn statements concerning facts within her own knowledge. Such statements, when unequivocal and against her own interest, are judicial admissions, and unless they are explained or clarified elsewhere in plaintiff’s testimony, she cannot disown them or adopt contrary statements made by others.

1971 Pennington v. Beamon, 211 Va. 493, 178 S.E.2d 511.

Admissions miscellaneous.Defendant admitted to trooper shortly after accident that he had been drinking and that he was not used to drinking.

1967 Goodwin & Reed v. Gilman, 208 Va. 422, 157 S.E.2d 912.

Admissions of party were admitted into evidence. When that party was dismissed, counsel could have obtained cautionary instruction to consider evidence for limited purpose.

1967 Tyree v. Lariew, 208 Va. 382, 158 S.E.2d 140.

Tire blowout case. Defendant owner admitted that tires were bad and that he knew of this. This was sufficient to create jury issue.

1965 Bradshaw v. Minter, 206 Va. 450, 143 S.E.2d 827.

Plaintiff thrown from horse. Wife’s statement to defendant: “I told you to get rid of that horse” and defendant’s failure to reply was admissible although probative value was slight.

1953 Tellis v. Traynham, 195 Va. 447, 78 S.E.2d 581.

Defendant admitted to witness at scene of accident that he was going 36 mph. Speed limit was 25 mph. Statement was admissible as admission and it was proper to allow words that elicited response from defendant to be introduced to explain how it occurred.

1953 Kidd & Taylor v. Little, 194 Va. 692, 74 S.E.2d 787.

Defendant testifying in his own behalf is not so bound by his own admissions as to be precluded from availing himself of defenses brought out in evidence of his adversary.

1951 Carter v. Pickering, 191 Va. 801, 62 S.E.2d 856.

Admissions against interest are not admissible against other defendants for purpose of exculpating such other defendants, but only to prove negligence or liability of defendant making admission against interest. Upon timely request, such evidence would be admitted solely for such specific and limited purpose of establishing liability of defendant making admission against interest.

1948 Southern Passenger Motor Lines v. Burks, 187 Va. 53, 46 S.E.2d 26.

Statement by plaintiff that collision was not caused by fault of cab driver is admissible even though it is opinion.

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

Admissions Miscellaneous Cases Summarized By Accident Lawyer

Contact Us For A Free Consultation

    Contact Us For A Free Consultation