Questions put in cross-examination, while not evidence in a strict sense, form part of the conduct of a party's case and may give rise to inferences as to the party's instructions that are admissible not only at the trial where the cross-examination occurred but also at a subsequent trial. A party who did not give notice requiring jury trial under r 47.02(1) has no right to insist on a new jury trial after the jury is discharged; paying jury fees does not constitute the exercise of such a right. When assessing prejudice on a mid-trial amendment application, the court must consider whether the opposing party's cross-examination, conducted on the assumption the new claim was not being made, created irremediable prejudice through implicit admissions or assertions that could be used at a subsequent trial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.