On redirect in a car accident trial, the plaintiff has not mentioned damages to their own car. Can the defense object to asking about a left rear fender dent as Beyond the Scope?

On redirect in a car accident trial, the plaintiff has not mentioned damages to their own car. Can the defense object to asking about a left rear fender dent as Beyond the Scope?

• A. Yes. Beyond the Scope
• B. No. Not Beyond the Scope
• C. Yes. Irrelevant
• D. No. Not Relevant

Answer: (A)

The key idea is how redirect works: redirect is meant to address material raised on cross-examination or to rehabilitate testimony, not to introduce entirely new topics. If the plaintiff never mentioned damages to their own car during direct, bringing up a left rear fender dent on redirect would be introducing a new issue that wasn’t discussed before. That makes it beyond the scope of redirect. The proper objection is that the question is beyond the scope of redirect, since it seeks to explore a new topic rather than clarify or rehabilitate something already brought out. While it could be argued as potentially relevant to damages or credibility, the scope rule limits redirect to matters raised earlier, so this line of questioning is not allowed.

The key idea is how redirect works: redirect is meant to address material raised on cross-examination or to rehabilitate testimony, not to introduce entirely new topics. If the plaintiff never mentioned damages to their own car during direct, bringing up a left rear fender dent on redirect would be introducing a new issue that wasn’t discussed before. That makes it beyond the scope of redirect. The proper objection is that the question is beyond the scope of redirect, since it seeks to explore a new topic rather than clarify or rehabilitate something already brought out. While it could be argued as potentially relevant to damages or credibility, the scope rule limits redirect to matters raised earlier, so this line of questioning is not allowed.