Luna v. Luna

• Decision Date: 20 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20190396,20190396
• Citation: 474 P.3d 966
• Parties: Luis LUNA, Petitioner, v. Maria LUNA, Respondent.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

474 P.3d 966

Luis LUNA, Petitioner,

v.Maria LUNA, Respondent.

No. 20190396

Supreme Court of Utah.

Heard May 21, 2020

Filed August 20, 2020

On Certiorari to the Court of Appeals

Justice Pearce, opinion of the Court:

INTRODUCTION

¶1 Maria Luna and Antonio Arias were involved in a car accident in a Salt Lake City intersection. Luis Luna, a passenger in his sister Maria's car, was injured as a result. Luis sued Maria and Antonio. Maria moved for summary judgment based, in part, on Luis's testimony that Maria had entered the intersection on a green light. Luis sought to defeat summary judgment with Antonio's testimony that he had the green light. The district court refused to allow Luis to create a genuine issue of material fact by introducing evidence that contradicted his own sworn deposition testimony. The district court reasoned that Luis's statement should be considered a judicial admission not capable of being rebutted by other evidence. The court of appeals agreed.

¶2 Under the approach the district court employed, and the court of appeals endorsed, if Luis testified the light was green, and Maria agreed, it was green. Even if Luis could offer traffic camera video showing that the light was red, and could buttress that video with the testimony of twenty-seven nuns on their way home from Mass attesting that the light was red, Luis could still not defeat summary judgment and let a trier of fact decide what color the light really was.

¶3 This is ultimately a policy question. Although we understand why the district court and court of appeals would credit policies of efficiency and the seeming unseemliness of allowing a party to contradict her own testimony, we conclude that the truth-finding function of the trial process deserves more weight than the lower courts ascribed to it. We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND¹

¶4 We appreciate the court of appeals’ recitation of the facts in its opinion. See Luna v. Luna , 2019 UT App 57, 442 P.3d 1155. We adopt many of those facts.

¶5 Maria was driving her brother, Luis, to work, when both she and Antonio entered an intersection and collided. Id. ¶ 2. As a result, Luis, who was sitting in the passenger's seat, was injured. Id. Assuming the fault lay with one of the drivers and not Salt Lake City's traffic system, Luis brought a negligence suit against Maria and Antonio. Id. Luis alleged either Maria or Antonio ran a red light and that both had acted negligently in not yielding. Id.

¶6 During discovery, Antonio stated that he had a green light, giving him the right of way at the intersection. Id. ¶ 6. Maria stated that she also had a green light. Id. ¶ 3. In two depositions, Maria's counsel asked Luis if he saw the color of the traffic light as he and Maria were entering the intersection. Luis responded, "[w]e had the right-of-way." As a follow up, Luis stated that he saw the color of the light as they entered the intersection and it was green. Id. When asked how far away he was from the intersection when he first noticed the color of the traffic light, Luis testified that he did not know, "it all happened suddenly" but the light was "green when [they] went through it."

¶7 Maria's counsel also asked Luis if he had "any problems with the way [Maria] operated her vehicle on the day of the accident." Id. ¶ 5. Luis responded, "No." Id. And when asked to confirm "that [he] had no problems with the way [Maria] operated her vehicle on the day of the accident," Luis responded, "Yes." Id.

¶8 Luis settled with Antonio, and Antonio was dismissed from the case. Id. ¶ 6. Maria moved for summary judgment arguing there was no longer a genuine issue as to any material fact because both she and Luis agreed that the light was green when Maria entered the intersection. Id. Luis wanted to defeat summary judgment with Antonio's testimony that the light was green when he entered the intersection—which would mean it was red when Maria entered. Id.

¶9 The district court requested supplemental briefing on whether Luis‘s deposition statements constituted judicial admissions. Id. ¶ 7. A judicial admission is an admission that a party cannot rebut with contrary evidence. See Judicial Admission , BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). In contrast, an evidentiary admission can be rebutted. Luis acknowledged he had consistently testified the light was green but contended that a jury should have the opportunity to disregard his testimony in favor of Antonio‘s version of the story. Luna , 2019 UT App 57, ¶ 7, 442 P.3d 1155. The district court determined Luis‘s statements were judicial admissions that he could not contradict. Id. It then granted summary judgment in favor of Maria. Id.

¶10 Luis appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment. Id. ¶ 9. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's decision and agreed Luis's statements about the color of the light constituted a judicial admission. Id. ¶¶ 22, 29.

¶11 The court of appeals acknowledged that whether a party's deposition statement could constitute a judicial admission presented an issue of first impression in Utah. Id. ¶¶ 15 –16. It referenced two approaches other jurisdictions have employed to address this issue. Id. ¶ 16. One approach is to "treat the sworn testimony of a party like that of any other witness, allowing parties to contradict their own statements with the testimony of other witnesses." Id. The other is to "consider a party's sworn deposition testimony to be binding on that party, provided that the statements are unequivocal and made about facts within the party's knowledge." Id.

¶12 The court of appeals preferred the second option for two reasons. Id. ¶¶ 17–19. First, it determined that having a trial when there was no dispute about a particular issue between litigants would waste judicial resources. Id. ¶¶ 17–18. Second, the court of appeals opined that categorizing deposition statements as judicial admissions would promote justice by both discouraging perjury and by holding litigants to their deposition testimony. Id. ¶ 19.

¶13 Citing those policy-based rationales, the court of appeals determined that "a party's sworn deposition statements, provided certain factors are present, can constitute binding judicial admissions." Id. ¶ 22. The court of appeals then established four criteria that a party would have to show before a court could categorize a party's testimony as a judicial admission: 1) "the statement is made under oath during the course of the judicial proceeding;" 2) "the statement is clear and unequivocal;" 3) "the statement is about a factual matter within the party's personal knowledge;" and 4) "giving binding effect to the statement would be consonant" with the underlying policies. Id. ¶ 28.

¶14 Applying this standard, the court of appeals analyzed Luis's statements that Maria had a green light and that he "had no problem" with the way Maria operated the vehicle. Id. ¶ 29. The court of appeals determined that the first statement qualified as a judicial admission, but the second did not. Id.

¶15 Luis petitioned for certiorari. He asks us to review whether the court of appeals erred in adopting the judicial admission doctrine.² We granted certiorari.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶16 Luis asks us to consider whether the court of appeals erred in adopting a rule that a party's deposition statements may be treated as binding judicial admissions.

¶17 " ‘On a writ of certiorari, we review the decision of the court of appeals, not that of the district court, and apply the same standard[s] of review used by the court of appeals. We conduct that review for correctness, ceding no deference to the court of appeals.’ " State v. Wilder , 2018 UT 17, ¶ 15, 420 P.3d 1064 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). And when reviewing a motion for summary judgment under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 56, "we view any facts and any reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.’ " Fire Ins. Exch. v. Oltmanns , 2018 UT 10, ¶ 7, 416 P.3d 1148 (citation omitted).

¶18 Although a correctness standard of review requires us to determine whether the court of appeals erred, we note that "err" is something of a misnomer in this context. The question presented to us is one of pure policy and a classic example of this court being right by virtue of being last.

ANALYSIS

I. The Court of Appeals’ Opinion

¶19 The court of appeals commenced its analysis by correctly stating that "a party's admission of fact in a pleading is normally treated as a conclusive admission that the party is not later permitted to contradict, even with evidence from other sources." Luna v. Luna , 2019 UT App 57, ¶ 15, 442 P.3d 1155 ; see also Baldwin v. Vantage Corp. , 676 P.2d 413, 415 (Utah 1984) ("An admission of fact in a pleading is a judicial admission and is normally conclusive on the party making it.").³ The court of appeals then correctly noted that no Utah appellate court has decided if a party can be "conclusively held" to the statements she makes in a deposition. Luna , 2019 UT App 57, ¶ 15, 442 P.3d 1155.

¶20 The court of appeals examined two basic approaches other jurisdictions have used when considering the consequence of an admission made during a party's deposition. Id. ¶ 16. Some courts "treat the sworn testimony of a party like that of any other witness, allowing parties to contradict their own statements with the testimony of other witnesses." Id. Other jurisdictions "consider a party's sworn deposition testimony to be binding on that party, provided that the statements are unequivocal and made about facts within the party's knowledge." Id. The court of appeals determined that the second approach would be the "better rule" for two reasons. Id. ¶¶ 16 –22.

¶21 First, it opined that this approach was a better use of judicial resources because it does not allow a case to go to trial when the parties do not disagree about the matter to be tried. Id. ¶ 17. The court of appeals stated that if the parties "do not actually have a...