Can a lawyer who fails to put a proposition of evidence to a witness in cross-examination in a civil matter be held liable to sue the witness in a criminal case?

At para. 66 in Arnoldt: While issues concerning failure to comply with the rule in Browne v. Dunn may arise more frequently in the criminal law context than in civil law cases, the rule remains applicable in civil matters. Counsel who fail to put important propositions of evidence to witnesses in cross-examination yet seek to rely on those propositions to establish important aspects of their client's case take the risk that the evidence they seek to rely upon will be given little or even no weight. While the failure to put a proposition may in some circumstances be capable of being remedied by recalling a witness, that course of action will not always be available and may in fact itself be unduly prejudicial to the party or witness who did not create the evidentiary issue.