Most of this opinion concerns whether Lyft can be held liable under respondeat superior when one of its driver was driving a car that he obtained in a rental facilitated by Lyft but who was driving for a personal purpose at the time of the accident. The court holds it cannot and affirms a summary judgment for Lyft on that ground. Ok.
But the plaintiff also complains that the trial court erred in limiting some of the issues he could inquire into during a PMQ depo of Lyft. The thing is, however, when you complain about a discovery ruling after a final judgment (as opposed to immediately taking a writ) you need to show that, but for the ruling, there’s a reasonable probably the case would have come out different. Here, the excluded testimony had absolutely nothing to do with the respondeat superior issue that ended plaintiff’s case. So right or wrong, the discovery ruling can’t be reversible error.
No comments:
Post a Comment