Hinds v. Nguyen
It is well established that the primary function of an appellate court is to review the record of the trial court for errors of law. (Tupman v. Haberkern (1929) 208 Cal. 256, 262.) Consequently, we generally review “the correctness of a judgment as of the time of its rendition, upon a record of matters which were before the trial court for its consideration.” (In re James V. (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 300, 304.)
Here, Jack Hinds III sued Danny Nguyen for injuries arising from a traffic collision. Before trial, the trial court excluded a recorded statement Hinds had made to his own insurance carrier. The court found Hinds’ statement was protected under the attorney-client privilege and the privilege had not been waived. The jury later found Nguyen negligent and awarded Hinds damages.
On appeal, Nguyen contends that the trial court erroneously excluded Hinds’ statement. But Nguyen’s arguments, as well as the recorded statement
Comments on Hinds v. Nguyen