In what circumstances will the court order that a plaintiff be allowed to proceed on appeal on the basis that she failed to provide a proper offer of proof as to the pecuniary extent of her damages?

In this case the court found no such overreaching. (See fns. 5 and 6, above.) The record fails to reveal that the plaintiff ever offered any proof as to the pecuniary extent of her damages. She cannot now complain that this defect was occasioned by action of the court or of her adversary. (See Moore v. Rogers, supra, 157 Cal.App.2d 192, 197, 320 P.2d 524.) From all that appears if plaintiff had advanced the contention now made on appeal at the trial of the limited issues, the trial court would have either entertained the proof, or entertained a motion to set aside the order for the bifurcated trial. In the absence of proper objection or offer of proof at the trial level there was no 'jurisdictional' bar, as in Cook v. Superior Court, Supra, to proceeding on the issues set forth in the trial court's order.