What is the test for admitting evidence about the personal life of a plaintiff in a civil case?

Cranford contends the trial court abused its discretion by allowing evidence about Shannon. Cranford asserts the evidence unfairly allowed the City to parade before the jury salacious details of her personal life "paint[ing her] as an unsympathetic homewrecker, i.e., a 'bad person' . . . unworthy of receiving justice." We disagree. The trial court specifically directed that objections to testimony concerning Cranford's personal life would have to be raised during trial as the relevance of any such information could only be assessed as the case unfolded. It was Cranford who then specifically elicited the testimony about Shannon from her own expert witness. Accordingly, her complaints are waived. (People v. Moran (1970) 1 Cal.3d 755, 762 [defendant cannot complain on appeal that admission of evidence was error where he offers it].) Furthermore, we cannot say Cranford suffered any prejudice from the evidence. It was only briefly mentioned during her expert's testimony and not mentioned at all during closing argument, and certainly never argued by the City in the manner Cranford suggests.