How have courts treated a hypothetical question in a personal injury case?

Richmond argues that the question was nevertheless an improper hypothetical because it was not truly hypothetical and called for an opinion about Richmond's personal motive. Richmond objected to the question as irrelevant; he did not object to the form of the hypothetical, nor did he object on the ground that it called for an improper opinion. He thus failed to preserve the issue for review. (See People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 209 [hypothetical to jury panel]; People v. Gutierrez (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1729, 1734-1735 [hypothetical to expert]; Evid. Code, 353.)