The appellant rock climbing facility appealed an Associate Justice's order requiring its representative to answer 16 refused questions on discovery in a personal injury action.
The questions related to hypothetical scenarios, witness statements, and the subjective interpretation of a liability waiver.
The Superior Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that questions requiring legal analysis, irrelevant opinions, or unfair presumptions did not need to be answered.
However, questions regarding the objective feasibility of safety measures and the subjective understanding of the waiver were ordered to be answered in writing to avoid unfair traps for a lay deponent.