## Facts

- Kelly Ann Kelly died in a collision while riding as a passenger in a pickup truck driven by Jason Ellefson.
- The pickup collided with a semi-tractor trailer connected to Supreme Transport Services, L.L.C. and related defendants (collectively, “Supreme Transport”).
- Kevin Kelly, as trustee for the heirs and next-of-kin, sued Ellefson, Supreme Transport, a bar (Lido’s Café), and another driver, alleging multiple parties’ fault caused the death.
- Before the jury was sworn, Kelly entered Pierringer settlements with Lido’s Café and the other driver, removing them from trial.
- At trial against the remaining defendants, the jury allocated fault 60% to Supreme Transport and 40% to Ellefson.
- Supreme Transport sought to introduce Kelly’s amended complaint, interrogatory answers, and an expert’s affidavit as admissions by a party-opponent to suggest fault of Lido’s or the decedent.
- The district court excluded those materials and denied Supreme Transport’s motion for a new trial on liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s amended complaint, interrogatory answers, and expert’s affidavit were admissible as admissions of a party-opponent to prove fault of the settling defendants or the decedent.
2. Whether exclusion of those materials was an abuse of discretion requiring a new trial on liability.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review limited to admissibility of the amended complaint, interrogatory answers, and expert affidavit.
- The court held the district court did not err in excluding the materials and that they were not admissible as party-opponent admissions for the purpose urged by Supreme Transport.
- The court reversed the court of appeals’ contrary ruling and its order for a new trial.
- The district court judgment based on the original verdict (60% Supreme Transport; 40% Ellefson) remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Materials generated in litigation (including pleadings, discovery responses, and expert submissions) are not automatically admissible as admissions of a party-opponent; admissibility depends on the nature of the statements and the context in which they were made.
- Courts may distinguish between unequivocal factual statements and litigation-position statements that are tentative, alternative, or tied to evolving theories and procedural posture.
- Trial courts retain discretion to exclude purported “admissions” when admission would be unfair or would distort the post-settlement framework created by Pierringer settlements.
- Exclusion of such materials is not reversible error absent an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s prior litigation documents and expert affidavit were properly excluded as party-opponent admissions, reversed the order granting a new liability trial, and left intact the jury’s allocation of fault between the remaining defendants.


Kelly v. Ellefson, 712 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. 2006)