“Rules Are For Children. This Is War, And In War The Only Crime Is To Lose,” Joe Abercrombie.

During the trial of a personal injury action, defense counsel asked questions in clear violation of the trial court’s in limine orders. The trial court sustained each of plaintiff counsel’s objections, but defense counsel continued to violate the in limine orders. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in favor of the defendant, stating: “Because of the cumulative effect of [defense counsel’s] misconduct we must reverse the judgment [defense counsel] obtained on behalf of her client…while [the trial judge] showed the patience of Job—usually a virtue in a judge—that patience here had the effect of favoring one side over the other. He allowed [defense counsel] to emphasize irrelevant and inflammatory points concerning the plaintiff’s character so often that he effectively gave [defendant] an unfair advantage. Imagine a football game in which the referee continually flagged one team for rule violations, but never actually imposed any yardage penalties on it. That happened here and requires reversal.” (Martinez v. Department of Transportation (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; July 7, 2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 559 [189 Cal.Rptr.3d 325].)