|
P1216 An expert's trial testimony that the accident force was comparable to what would be experienced during normal routine activities and probably did not result in the specific knee and shoulder injuries alleged by plaintiff did not exceed his deposition testimony that a plaintiff who was relatively active prior to the accident probably would not have been injured by the slight impact, but was merely an expansion of it, so the trial court did not err by admitting it.CitationDePALMA v RODRIGUEZ (Expert's Deposition) 151 CA4 159 [See: CCP 2034.260, 2034.300; Bonds v Roy 20 C4 140, T/AT 5/99; Jones v Moore 80 CA4 557, T/AT 6/00]
|
|
