What is the test for limiting standing in a personal injury action?

Central to my conclusion is the fact that one of the underlying purposes of limiting standing is the “need for courts to have the benefit of contending points of view of the persons most directly affected by the issue” (Downtown East Side, supra, at para. 29): Courts function as impartial arbiters within an adversary system. They depend on the parties to present the evidence and relevant arguments fully and skillfully. "[C]oncrete adverseness" sharpens the debate of the issues and the parties' personal stake in the outcome helps ensure that the arguments are presented thoroughly and diligently: see, e.g., Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), at p. 204.