Little Archie, The Child Witness

On June 1, 1981, a male child is born to Mr. and Mrs. P. The child is normal and named Archie. On June 1, 1984, Archie suffers multiple punctures of his leg in a playground injury. No one saw what happened. The punctures could have been made by a dog's teeth, nails in the sandbox board, or any number of other things. Archie's parents claim that D's dog is the culprit. On June 15, 1984, P sues D. At trial beginning July 15, 1984, Archie is called to testify. D's objection to calling Archie as a witness is sustained. Ptakes a voluntary nonsuit, and the case is dismissed. On December 15, 1984, P refiles his complaint. D answers. There are many continuances. Finally, the trial is held in 1990 before the same judge who presided at the first trial. Archie is called as the first witness.

D's objection to calling Archie as a witness is overruled. Are the two rulings compatible?