Motor vehicle accidents raise many complicated issues of fault and proof. One way to prove a defendant’s liability is by using an admission of guilt (“guilty plea”) in the underlying traffic court proceeding, which is ordinarily conducted soon after an accident is reported. Often, a potential defendant will plead guilty to a traffic citation. The guilty plea may be used in the civil case to demonstrate the fault of the motorist. “[G]uilty pleas to traffic offenses have been admitted in subsequent civil proceedings as admissions.” Young v. Forgas, 308 Ill.App.3d 553, 565 (4th Dist. 1999). A defendant’s claim he did not appreciate the effect of a guilty plea in a traffic case is irrelevant. As stated in Young, a “person must realize that civil litigation is a very real possibility and that the guilty plea to the traffic charge could reflect adversely upon him in a subsequent proceeding.” Id.
A guilty plea is an exception to the hearsay rule. “A guilty plea to a traffic violation is admissible as an admission against interest in a later civil action on the same facts.” Mivatovich v. Chicago Transit Authority, 112 Ill.App.2d 437, 442 (1st Dist. 1969). Courts reason that “a judicial admission is a deliberate, clear, unequivocal statement of a party about a concrete fact within that party’s peculiar knowledge.” Sohaey v. Van Cura, 240 Ill.App.3d 266, 280 (2nd Dist. 1992). “[A] judicial admission is conclusive upon the party who made it, and the party may not controvert the admission at trial or on appeal, so the effect of a judicial admission is to withdraw a fact from contention. Id., at 280-81. Additionally, “a party cannot create a question of fact for purposes of a summary judgment motion by attempting to contradict a previous judicial admission.” Id.
Continue reading