At the intersection of Folsom and Valmont 2 cars collide - a yellow Fiat driven by Ms. Barton in which Mr. Dreaves was a passenger, and a blue Buick driven by Mr. Folsom. In a Rules jurisdiction Barton sues Falsom for personal injuries and property damage. During her case in-chief Barton calls Dreaves who testifies on direct examination that "the Buick ran a red light" On cross-examination, Folsom's Counsel asked the following questions:

Q. Now Mr Dreaves, you and Ms Barton are seeing each other socially, isn't that right?

Q. Isn't it true Mr. Dreaves, that at the time of the accident Ms.Barton here had turned clear around in her seat and was looking out the back window of the car?

Q. Tell me, Mr. Dreaves, you and Ms. Barton here had just finished lunch at Sebastian's where she drank three glasses of wine just before the accident, isn't that true?

To each question Barton's counsel objects - "improper, as beyond the scope of direct your honor" How should the judge rule in each instance and why ? What arguments do you expect from Barton and Folsom?