Zlatina S Georgieva

In a personal injury action arising from a pedestrian–vehicle collision, the defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiffs to provide proper responses to requests to admit under Rule 51 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs had provided blanket refusals to admit all alleged facts, asserting that the truth of the facts was unclear, vague, or required determination by the trier of fact.

The court held that pro forma responses designed to defeat the purpose of Rule 51 may be reviewed on an interlocutory motion.

The plaintiffs’ global refusals failed to comply with Rule 51.03(3)(b) because they did not provide fact‑specific reasons for refusing to admit.

The court struck the responses and ordered the plaintiffs to deliver compliant responses within 20 days.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing the action against them following a pedestrian‑vehicle collision on a highway involving a waste management truck stopped during municipal waste collection.

The plaintiffs alleged the truck was negligently stopped in contravention of posted signs under the Highway Traffic Act and may have obstructed the line of sight of the tractor‑trailer driver who struck the pedestrian.

The court held the motion was premature because discoveries had not been completed and key evidence from the tractor‑trailer driver was unavailable.

The court also found unresolved factual issues regarding possible contributory negligence and the applicability of statutory immunity under s. 448(1) of the Municipal Act.

A genuine issue requiring a trial existed.