Lutz v. Erie Insurance Exchange

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that a party's pleadings are subject to judicial notice and that a factual admission in a pleading may constitute a binding judicial admission. Although the color of a traffic light was not independently subject to judicial notice, the court could notice McCormick's admission in her answer that she entered against a red light. The court concluded that any failure to instruct the jury that the light was red was harmless and affirmed the judgment.

Holdings

1. A party's pleadings are subject to judicial notice, even when the facts recited in the pleading are not independently appropriate subjects of judicial notice.
2. The color of a traffic light at a particular time and place is not a proper subject of judicial notice because it is neither generally known nor capable of accurate and ready determination from an unquestionable source.
3. Once judicially noticed, McCormick's admission in her answer that the light was red became a judicial admission binding on McCormick as a matter of law.
4. Any error in failing to give an instruction concerning McCormick's pleading admission was harmless because Lutz was not prejudiced.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court was required to take judicial notice of McCormick's pleading admission that she entered the intersection against a red light.
2. Whether the color of the traffic light itself was a proper subject of judicial notice.
3. Whether any error arising from the failure to give an instruction concerning the pleading admission required reversal.

Disposition

affirmed