How have courts interpreted work product privilege in the context of a personal injury claim?

The court first held that the subject declaration, except for one immaterial sentence, was not hearsay. The court then added, without citation of authority, "The work product privilege was created for the protection of the client as well as the attorney and there is no reason why a party's declaration, asserting facts apparently within personal knowledge, should not be as effective as a declaration by the attorney." ( Mack v. Superior Court, supra, 259 Cal.App.2d at p. 10, 66 Cal.Rptr. 280.)

I cannot agree with the statement that "The work product privilege was created for the protection of the client as well as the attorney" and believe the following observation of the court in Lohman v. Superior Court, supra, 81 Cal.App.3d at page 101, 146 Cal.Rptr. 171 to be the correct one: