jury. The Court of Appeals additionally determined that Dr. Witten’s testimony that he slipped in the operating room constituted a judicial admission of negligence. “A judicial admission ... is a formal act of a party (committed during the course of a judicial proceeding) that has the effect of removing a fact or issue from the field of dispute; it is conclusive against the party and may be the underlying basis for a summary judgment, directed verdict, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” Robert G. Lawson, The Kentucky Evidence Law Handbook § 8.15[4], at 590 (4th ed. LexisNexis 2003) (emphasis omitted). Testimony of a party may constitute a judicial admission if “deliberate and unequivocal and unexplained or uncontradict-ed.” Bell v. Harmon, 284 S.W.2d 812, 815 (Ky.1955). y.1973) (<HOLDING>); Downing v. Drybrough, 249 S.W.2d 711
holding that negligence of a store customer in failing to perceive a strip of black substance was a question for the jury holding that whether the negligent acts of parties combined to become the proximate cause of the injury was a question for the jury holding that grocery store did not have duty to foresee and protect customer from rowdy children holding that whether a customer was negligent in failing to observe a bundle of grocery sacks on the floor before stepping toward it is a jury question holding that negligence of a pedestrian in tripping over a concrete abatement on the premises of a grocery store was a question to be resolved by the jury