The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant's representative to answer a refused question from an examination for discovery.
The underlying action involved allegations of negligent repair of an ATV.
The refused question asked the representative to agree that if the threads on the axle were intact, the only way the tire could come off was if the cotter pin was missing.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the question improperly sought an expert opinion on a hypothetical matter from a layperson.