McSparran v. Hanigan
7 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 749, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7719, 225 F.Supp. 628 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A factual admission made in response to a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 is conclusively binding on the party who made the admission for the purpose of the pending action, removing the issue of fact from controversy at trial.
Facts:
- John McShain, Inc. was the general contractor for an addition to Misericordia Hospital and subcontracted plumbing work to William H. Walters & Sons, Inc.
- Ignatius Peter Kane, the decedent, was a plumber employed by Walters, and Edward Thomas Subers was Walters' foreman on the job.
- Walters subcontracted the digging of a trench for a sewer line to Walter Hinkle, who in turn arranged for John Hanigan to perform the excavation.
- Subers directed Hanigan where to dig the trench. Due to a shanty that McShain's foreman refused to move, the trench was dug narrowly along the shanty's edge without shoring to support its walls.
- Hanigan dug the unshored trench knowing it was unsafe, destroying the shanty's lateral support and using heavy equipment that straddled the trench.
- Robert R. Tyler, another McShain subcontractor, was conducting blasting operations nearby.
- Subers ordered Kane to work in the unsafe trench.
- Shortly after Tyler detonated a blast, the unshored trench caved in, killing Kane.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent's administratrix, McSparran, filed two separate actions in federal district court.
- One action was against the decedent's foreman, Subers, under the state survival act.
- The second action was against the general contractor (McShain), the excavator (Hanigan), the original excavation subcontractor (Hinkle), and the dynamiter (Tyler) for wrongful death and survival claims.
- The two actions were consolidated for trial.
- Following a lengthy trial, the jury returned verdicts against all defendants.
- Following the verdicts, all defendants and the plaintiff filed numerous post-trial motions, including motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a pre-trial admission of fact made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 conclusively binding on the admitting party, thereby preventing that party from contesting the admitted fact before a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Freedman, J.
Yes, a pre-trial admission of fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 is conclusively binding. The purpose of Rule 36 is not to discover information, but to eliminate the need to prove factual matters at trial that the opposing party cannot fairly contest. Unlike answers to interrogatories or deposition testimony, which are evidentiary and may be contradicted, an admission under Rule 36 is a judicial admission that removes the admitted fact from dispute. Here, the plaintiff's administratrix formally admitted that McShain occupied or controlled the premises. This admission established a key element of McShain's statutory employer defense under Pennsylvania's Workmen's Compensation Act, which grants immunity from common law negligence suits. Because the admission was conclusive, there was no factual issue regarding control for the jury to decide, and McShain was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the powerful and distinct role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 in civil litigation. By holding that admissions under this rule are conclusive rather than merely evidentiary, the court solidifies the rule as a primary tool for narrowing the scope of trial. This precedent encourages parties to use requests for admission to definitively settle undisputed facts, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and reducing litigation costs. Future litigants and courts will look to this opinion to distinguish the binding effect of a Rule 36 admission from the more flexible nature of other discovery responses like interrogatories or deposition testimony.
