Tort Law

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

Discovery Request For Admissions-Cases

2003 Shaheen v. County of Matthews, 265 Va. 462, 579 S.E.2d 162.

Discovery request for admissions: County sought to withdraw admissions that had been deemed admitted. In allowing such, trial court must consider whether presentation of the merits of the action will be subserved and party who obtained the admission satisfies the court that withdrawal or amendment will prejudice him in maintaining his action or defense on the merits. In analyzing that, the court expresses the preference for presentation of action on the merits. In this case, the amendment was allowed.

1995 Food Lion, Inc. v. Melton, 250 Va. 144, 458 S.E.2d 580.

Discovery Request for admissions were admitted and then subsequently amended with permission of the court. Although the initial admissions are no longer binding, they are admissible.

1995 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haines, 250 Va. 71, 458 S.E.2d 285.

Declaratory judgment issue on question of permissive use. This issue was addressed in request for admissions and was admitted and, as such, no evidence to the contrary can be presented by that party. Request for admissions are not binding on other defendants, although in this instance those other defendants could not rely upon testimony of defendant who had made the admissions.

1988 Erie Ins. Exch. v. Jones, 236 Va. 10, 372 S.E.2d 128.

Discovery request for admissions: Party upon whom request for admissions is served has good faith duty to specify so much as is true and qualify or deny remainder. There is also duty on requesting party to phrase his requests with clarity so other party can safely specify so much as is true without conceding disputed point. In this case Erie had reasonable ground to believe it might prevail and therefore it was improper to award sanctions for denial.

1987 Transilift Equip. v. Cunningham, 234 Va. 84, 360 S.E.2d 183.

Party seeking to rely on opposing party’s responses to requests for admissions must introduce them into evidence during trial of case. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver. Discovery depositions and answers to interrogatories generally do not conclusively bind party. Rule 4:7(c) provides that at trial or hearing any party may rebut any relevant evidence contained in deposition whether introduced by him or by any other party. Because answers in this case were not conclusive, Court holds that he was not estopped from explaining or clarifying contradiction.

1974 Washington v. Williams, 215 Va. 353, 210 S.E.2d 154.

Refused discovery request for admissions dealing with questions of fact rather than questions of law should be re-examined upon retrial of case.

1962 General Acc. v. Cohen, 203 Va. 810, 127 S.E.2d 339.

Plaintiff sent discovery request for admissions to defendant relating to facts that plaintiff knew were genuinely in dispute based upon defendant’s answer and pre-trial order. Defendant failed to respond. Summary judgment improperly entered based upon this request for admissions.