ÿWPC  …# VU:a %› 0(¡4ÉÝ 0—ì 0Dƒ Ç w@Ï 0J 0TY 0^­ 0h 0rs 0|å 0†a 0ç 1uw U,ì 0dU,|U*¨B)ÒDCû AM> B‹è¨A D3Ñfv~j 0@èvÓ( AOûÆJ 0D D/T Bƒ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡;p‚ 3|xŽ(G(22ú$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€ôˆ¸ôXXÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó zD{| î}U~g€U‚Ó€Ž 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òMay€21,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó 7Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÓ  ÓÔ€#ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝPlaintiff€passed€away€prior€to€this€appeal€and€the€administratrix€of€her€estate€has€been€substitutedÏas€a€party.Ì'''''ÿÿdxd \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€—žXXdædÈ7Ñœà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÙ€€ÙßL€&(%;+'h|›Ø` Å `€€LßÌÌBETTY€ANN€COX,à àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€€Shelby€Circuit€No.Ï28984€T.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9502„CV„00024Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌGENERAL€MOTORS€CORPORATION,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendant/Appellee.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€GEORGE€H.€BROWN,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òSTANLEY€J.€KLINEÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€AppellantÌÌÌò òLARRY€E.€KILLEBREWÌCHARLES€F.€MORROWÌBAKER,€DONELSON,€BEARMAN€&€CALDWELLÌó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌó ó›à àœÌÌÌÓÓà àThis›€products€liability€case€arises€from€a€fire€that€originated€in€plaintiff's€car€andÏÑ7€—žXXdæXXdæ7Ñspread€to€her€house,€resulting€in€substantial€personal€injury€and€property€damage.€ÏPlaintiff€filed€suit€against€General€Motors€Corp.€and€Courtesy€Pontiac,€Inc.,€allegingÏvarious€negligence€and€strict€liability€theories€of€recovery.€€Courtesy€Pontiac€prevailedÏon€its€motion€for€summary€judgment,€and€the€case€went€to€jury€trial€only€againstÏGeneral€Motors.€€The€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€General€Motors€and€judgmentÏwas€entered€accordingly.× ƒ) ××  ×€€€Plaintiff€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏprohibiting€her€from€pursuing€strict€liability€claims€against€defendant,€in€excludingÏcertain€evidence,€and€in€improperly€instructing€the€jury.€€For€the€reasons€hereinafterÏstated,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€court€below.ÌÌà àOn€June€21,€1988,€plaintiff's€1982€Grand€Prix€automobile€caught€fire€while€theÏcar€was€parked€with€the€ignition€off€in€the€garage€of€her€home.€€On€the€evening€of€JuneÍ20,€1988,€plaintiff€drove€her€car€home€from€work,€drove€to€a€near„by€fast€foodÏrestaurant,€and€then€returned€home.€She€testified€that€the€car€was€operating€properlyÏduring€this€time.€€Plaintiff€parked€the€car€in€her€garage€at€approximately€7:30€p.m.,€andÏwent€to€bed€around€midnight.€ÌÌà àAt€approximately€3€a.m.€on€June€21,€1988,€plaintiff's€next„door€neighbors€wereÏawakened€by€loud,€popping€noises.€One€of€the€neighbors€testified€that€when€sheÏlooked€out€of€the€window,€she€saw€a€fire€emanating€from€the€hood€of€plaintiff's€car.€ÏThe€neighbors€called€the€fire€department€and€attempted€to€douse€the€fire€with€water.€ÌÌà àCaptain€Branham€and€Captain€Martin€of€the€Memphis€Fire€DepartmentÏresponded€to€the€fire.€After€the€fire€had€been€extinguished,€Branham€and€MartinÏconducted€an€investigation.€€They€concluded€that€the€fire€originated€in€the€motorÏcompartment€of€the€car,€and€that€the€cause€of€the€fire€was€an€electrical€short€within€theÏmotor€compartment.€ÌÌà àThe€day€following€the€fire,€plaintiff€retained€Richard€Eley,€a€certified€fireÏinvestigator,€to€determine€the€origin€of€the€fire.€€€He€made€an€investigation€of€the€sceneÏand€concluded€that€the€fire€originated€at€the€Electronic€Control€Module€("ECM")€ofÏplaintiff's€car.€€The€ECM€is€the€automobile's€computer,€which€regulates€engineÏfunctions€and€sensors.€When€the€automobile€is€not€running,€the€ECM€retains€a€fewÏmilliamps€of€current.€Richard€Eley€found€evidence€of€electrical€activity€in€the€ECM€ofÏplaintiff's€car.€Eley€prepared€a€report€and€shipped€the€ECM€to€an€electrical€engineer,ÍLonnie€Buie,€to€determine€whether€the€ECM€caused€the€fire.€ÌÌà àMr.€Buie€inspected€the€ECM€and€found€evidence€of€electrical€failure€therein.€€HeÏtestified€that€the€ECM€was€in€an€unsafe€and€unreasonably€dangerous€condition€andÏthat€the€fire€was€caused€by€a€defect€in€the€ECM€that€consisted€of€a€loose€electricalÏconnection.€€à àÌà àAt€the€close€of€plaintiff's€proof,€defendant€moved€for€a€directed€verdict€on€theÏbasis€that€there€was€insufficient€proof€to€show€that€no€one€had€worked€on€the€ECMÏbetween€the€time€of€purchase€and€the€time€of€the€fire.€€The€trial€court€grantedÏdefendant's€motion,€thereby€precluding€plaintiff€from€pursuing€any€claims€based€onÏstrict€liability.€€The€trial€court€reasoned€as€follows:ÌÓÓœ›à8 àà8 àI€didn't€hear€any€proof€that€no€work€had€been€done€on€thisÏECM.€€I€never€heard€any€proof€that€this€was€actually€theÏECM€that€came€from€the€manufacturer.€€I€think€the€record€isÏsilent€on€both€of€those€two€issues...€I€can't€presume€that€noÏwork€had€been€done€on€that.€€She€testified€that€the€batteryÏhad€been€done€and€the€alternator.€€For€all€we€know,€herÏhusband€before€he€died€had€something€to€do€with€the€car.€ÏWe€just€don't€know.€€Ìœ›à àœÌ›ÌÓÓà àPlaintiff's€first€contention€on€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€grantingÏdefendant's€motion€for€directed€verdict€as€to€strict€liability€claims.ÌÌà àIn€ruling€on€a€motion€for€directed€verdict,€both€the€trial€judge€and€the€reviewingÏcourt€on€appeal€should€look€at€all€of€the€evidence,€taking€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÏof€it€in€favor€of€the€opponent€of€the€motion€and€allowing€all€reasonable€inferences€fromÏit€in€his€favor.€€The€courts€must€discard€all€countervailing€evidence,€and€if€there€is€thenÍany€dispute€as€to€any€material€determinative€evidence€or€any€doubt€as€to€theÏconclusion€to€be€drawn€from€the€whole€evidence,€the€motion€must€be€denied.€ÏòòTennessee€Farmers€Mutual€Ins.€Co.€v.€Hinsenóó,€651€œS.W.2d›€235,€237„38€(Tenn.€App.Ï1983).€€The€court€should€not€direct€a€verdict€if€there€is€any€material€evidence€in€theÏrecord€that€would€support€a€verdict€for€the€plaintiff€under€any€of€the€theories€that€he€hasÏadvanced.€€òòWharton€Transport€Corp.€v.€Bridgesóó,€606€œS.W.2d›€521,€525€(Tenn.€1980).€ÏDirected€verdicts€are€appropriate€only€when€the€evidence,€viewed€reasonably,Ïsupports€one€conclusion.€€They€are€inappropriate€when€material€facts€are€in€dispute€orÏwhen€substantial€disagreement€exists€concerning€conclusions€to€be€drawn€from€theÏevidence.€€òòPettus€v.€Hurstóó,€882€œS.W.2d›€783,€788€(Tenn.€App.€1993).ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€an€action€for€strict€liability€in€tort,€plaintiff€must€prove€that€theÏproduct€was€in€a€defective€condition€or€was€unreasonably€dangerous€at€the€time€it€leftÏthe€manufacturer's€control.€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„28„105(a).€€The€Tennessee€Products€LiabilityÏAct€of€1978€defines€"defective€condition"€as€"a€condition€of€a€product€that€renders€itÏunsafe€for€normal€or€anticipatable€handling€and€consumption."€€T.C.A.€ðð€29„28„102(2)Ï(1980).€€"Unreasonably€dangerous"€is€defined€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]hat€a€product€is€dangerous€to€an€extent€beyond€thatÏwhich€would€be€contemplated€by€the€ordinary€consumerÏwho€purchases€it,€with€the€ordinary€knowledge€common€toÏthe€community€as€to€its€characteristics,€or€that€the€productÏbecause€of€its€dangerous€condition€would€not€be€put€on€theÏmarket€by€a€reasonably€prudent€manufacturer€or€sellerÏassuming€that€he€knew€of€its€dangerous€condition.ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€29„28„102(8)€(1980).ÌÌà àA€defect€in€a€product€may€be€proved€by€circumstantial€evidence,€directÏevidence,€or€both.€€òòBrowder€v.€Pettigrewóó,€541€œS.W.2d›€402,€405€(Tenn.€1976).€€AlthoughÏthe€mere€occurrence€of€an€accident€is€insufficient€to€prove€a€defect,€otherÏcircumstantial€evidence,€"such€as€proof€of€proper€use,€handling€or€operation€of€theÏproduct€and€the€nature€of€the€malfunction,€may€be€enough€to€satisfy€the€requirementÏthat€something€[is]€wrong€with€[the€product]."€€òòBrowderóó,€541€S.W.€2d€at€406€(quotingÏòòScanlon€v.€General€Motors€Corp.óó,€65€N.J.€582,€326€A.2d€673€(1974)).€€A€defectiveÏcondition€may€be€proven€by€testimony€of€an€expertÑ€+ÑÇwho€either€opines€as€to€the€product's€design€or€has€inspected€the€product.€€òòId.óó€ÏAdditionally,€"the€issue€of€whether€a€product€is€defective€or€dangerous€is€one€for€theÏjury."€€òòWhaley€v.€Rheem€Manuf.€Co.óó,€900€œS.W.2d›€296,€300€(Tenn.€App.€1995)€(quotingÏòòCurtis€v.€Universal€Match€Corp.óó,€778€F.€Supp.€1421,€1425€(E.D.€Tenn.€1991)).€€ÌÌà àIn€accordance€with€the€above€principles,€we€will€review€the€evidence€adducedÏby€plaintiff€in€order€to€evaluate€the€propriety€of€the€trial€judge's€granting€of€the€directedÏverdict€as€to€plaintiff's€strict€liability€claims.à àÌÌà àPlaintiff€purchased€the€car€in€November€1981,€from€Courtesy€Pontiac,€Inc.€€As€ofÏthe€date€of€the€fire,€the€car€had€approximately€42,000€miles€on€it.€Since€its€purchase,Ïthe€battery€and€the€alternator€in€the€car€had€been€replaced€at€a€local€service€station.€ÏPlaintiff€also€had€minor€repair€work€performed€under€warranty€at€Courtesy€Pontiac,ÏInc.,€and€she€had€body€work€done€to€the€car€as€a€result€of€a€wreck€that€dented€theÏdriver's€door€and€broke€the€windshield.Ìà àÌà àPlaintiff€introduced€the€testimony€of€two€expert€witnesses,€Richard€Eley€andÏLonnie€Buie,€in€support€of€her€claim.€€The€day€after€the€fire,€Eley,€a€certified€fireÏinvestigator,€€went€to€plaintiff's€house€€to€investigate€the€cause€of€the€fire.€€€UponÏexamining€the€automobile,€he€concluded€that€there€had€been€some€arcing€or€electricalÏactivity€inside€the€ECM.€€He€based€his€conclusion€that€the€fire€originated€in€the€ECM€byÏpinpointing€the€locations€of€the€intensity€of€the€fire€and€by€tracing€the€wiring€in€the€car.€ÏEley€placed€the€ECM€in€a€box€and€shipped€it€to€Mr.€Lonnie€Buie.ÌÌà à€Buie€has€been€an€electrical€engineer€since€1974.€He€testified€that€he€hasÏinvestigated€approximately€1,500€electrical€fires€over€the€course€of€his€career,€with€oneÏto€two€hundred€of€those€investigations€involving€electrical€equipment€within€vehicles.€ÏBuie€testified€that€the€fire€originated€in€the€ECM€due€to€a€loose€electrical€connectionÏthat€generated€heat,€thereby€causing€an€electrical€failure.€€He€further€stated€that,€in€hisÏopinion,€the€circumstances€that€caused€the€connection€to€become€loose€would€haveÏexisted€at€the€time€the€ECM€left€the€defendant's€control.€€It€was€Buie's€opinion€to€aÏreasonable€degree€of€scientific€certainty,€that€the€ECM€was€in€an€unsafe€andÏunreasonably€dangerous€condition€at€the€time€that€it€left€the€defendant's€control.€€BuieÏtestified€in€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ.€€Did€you€form€an€opinion€based€upon€your€examinationÏat€that€time€as€to€whether€this€component,€the€ECM,€couldÏhave€and€might€have€to€a€reasonable€degree€of€scientificÏcertainty€contributed€to€a€fire?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€I€did.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Subsequent€to€your€deposition€that€followed€your€initialÏexamination„„what€is€your€opinion?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€That€it€did,€that€it€could...Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Mr.€Buie,€do€you€have€an€opinion€based€upon€aÏreasonable€degree€of€scientific€certainty€whether€theÏcondition€of€this€ECM€when€you€examined€it€had€a€conditionÏthat€renders€it€unsafe€for€a€normal€or€anticipated€use€orÏhandling€in€this€particular€automobile?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€I€do€have€an€opinion,€yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€What€is€that€opinion?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€That€it€does.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Do€you€have€an€opinion,€sir,€based€upon€yourÏexamination€to€a€reasonable€degree€of€scientific€certaintyÏwhether€this€product,€the€ECM,€as€your€examined€it,€wasÏunreasonably€dangerous?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€I€do.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€And€was€this€defect€or€unreasonable€dangerousnessÍthat€your€opinion€related€to,€did€it€exist€at€the€time€the€ECMÏin€this€Pontiac€automobile€left€the€hands€of€General€MotorsÏan€went€into€commerce,€whatever€commerce€it€went€into?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Well,€assuming€no€one€had€performed€any€repairs€on€itÏor€been€inside€the€kick€panel,€yes,€sir.ÓÓÌBuie€stated€that€the€circumstances€that€caused€the€connection€to€become€loose€wouldÏhave€existed€at€the€time€of€manufacture,€as€long€as€no€one€had€removed€the€panelÏfrom€the€side€of€the€ECM.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€Buie€was€asked:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àQ.€€Can€you€state€to€a€reasonable€degree€of€scientificÏcertainty€that€the€ECM€and€the€connecters€were€defectiveÏwhen€they€left€General€Motors€Corporation?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€You€can?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€sir,€if€no€one€had€been€in€there€working€on€the€unit,Ïyes,€sir.Ìà8 àà8 àQ.€€Your€answer€is€assuming€no€one€had€touched€it,€it€isÏyour€opinion€that€it€was€defective?Ìà8 àà8 àA.€€Yes,€sir.ÌÌÓÓÌà àBuie€testified€that€he€found€no€evidence€that€the€ECM€had€been€tampered€withÏor€worked€on.ÌÌ€à àBuie€explained€that€while€a€vehicle€is€not€running,€an€ECM€will€typically€retain€aÏcurrent€of€ten€to€thirty€milliamps,€assuming€that€there€is€no€failure€in€the€ECM.€ForÏpurposes€of€comparison,€a€battery„operated€wristwatch€generally€has€ten€or€lessÏmilliamps€of€current.€€Buie€opined€that€excessive€current€had€flowed€through€the€ECM.€ÏÌà àÌà àThe€law€governing€motions€for€directed€verdicts,€requiring€the€motion€to€beÏdenied€if€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€plaintiff's€theory,€results€in€theÏconclusion€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€precluding€plaintiff€from€pursuing€her€strictÏliability€theories€of€recovery.€€The€record€reflects€that,€contrary€to€the€trial€judge'sÏassertion,€there€was€proof€that€no€work€had€been€done€on€the€ECM.€€For€instance,ÏBuie€testified€that€he€found€no€evidence€of€repairs€to€the€ECM.€€Furthermore,€plaintiffÏtestified€that€the€ECM€€had€never€been€repaired.€Finally,€available€service€recordsÏindicated€that€no€repairs€were€ever€made€to€the€ECM.€€Moreover,€in€contrast€to€theÏfinding€of€the€trial€court,€there€was€proof€that€the€ECM€that€Buie€examined€was€the€oneÏthat€came€from€the€defendant€manufacturer.€€€Plaintiff€testified€that€the€ECM€had€notÏbeen€replaced€since€the€car's€purchase,€and€Eley€testified€that€he€pulled€it€out€ofÏplaintiff's€car€and€sent€it€to€€Buie.€€Finally,€with€respect€to€the€trial€judge's€statement€thatÏperhaps€plaintiff's€husband€did€something€to€the€car€before€he€died,€it€is€undisputedÏthat€her€husband€died€before€she€purchased€the€car.€€€ÌÌà àAs€previously€stated,€the€general€rule€in€Tennessee€is€that€the€issue€of€whetherÏa€product€is€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous€is€one€for€the€jury.€€òòWhaleyóó,€900ÏS.W.2d€at€300.€€Taking€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€plaintiffÏand€discarding€all€countervailing€evidence,€we€find€that€plaintiff's€proof€was€sufficientÏto€survive€defendant's€motion€for€directed€verdict.Ìà àÌà àPlaintiff's€next€contention€on€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excludingÍreference€in€trial€to€a€General€Motors€service€bulletin.€€The€content€of€this€bulletin€is,€inÏessence,€that€when€a€battery€goes€dead€after€sitting€overnight€on€any€1980„84€vehicleÏequipped€with€an€ECM,€several€potential€causes€should€be€investigated€in€order€toÏdetermine€the€cause€of€the€drain€on€the€battery.€€One€of€the€items€that€should€beÏchecked€if€excessive€amperage€draw€is€present€is€the€ECM.€€The€bulletin€states€that€ifÏtesting€indicates€that€when€the€ignition€is€off€and€the€ECM€is€"staying€powered€up€whenÏit€shouldn't€be€[it]€should€be€replaced...€€Any€ECM€found€with€this€failure€mode€shouldÏhave€the€failure€noted€on€the€yellow€ECM€return€tag€as€'Battery€goes€dead€ECM€staysÏpowered€up€with€ignition€off.'"ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€refused€to€allow€reference€to€the€bulletin,€stating:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Court€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€document€is€confusing,Ïthat€its€proffered€value€is€outweighed€by€its€prejudicialÏeffect,€and€lastly,€the€use€of€the€document€by€the€witnessÏelicited€speculative€testimony.€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiff€argues€that€the€bulletin€should€have€been€admitted€into€evidence€Ìbecause,€according€to€plaintiff,€the€bulletin€indicates€that€defendant€had€a€problem€withÏECMs€pulling€down€too€much€current.€It€is€plaintiff's€position€that€the€bulletin€explainsÏto€the€jury€how€ECMs€can€draw€more€current€than€normal€and€that€defendant€knewÏabout€the€defect€prior€to€the€fire.€ÌÌà àRelevant€evidence€is€evidence€"having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€ofÏany€fact€that€is€of€consequence€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€it€would€beÍwithout€the€evidence."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€401.€€Buie€testified€that€excessive€current€flowedÏthrough€the€ECM.€€Plaintiff€sought€to€introduce€the€evidence€in€order€to€show€thatÏECMs€in€defendant's€cars€are€capable€of€drawing€more€than€a€minimum€of€current.€ÏWe€do€not€find€that€the€probative€value€of€the€bulletin€would€be€substantiallyÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€as€required€by€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€InÏaddition,€the€bulletin€would€not€serve€to€confuse€the€jury€because€its€contents€could€beÏexplained€both€by€defendant's€and€plaintiff's€experts.€€Consequently,€we€hold€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€excluding€reference€to€the€bulletin€on€grounds€of€prejudice,Ïconfusion,€or€speculation.ÌÌà àIn€light€of€our€holding€that€plaintiff€should€be€allowed€to€proceed€with€her€strictÏliability€claims,€we€need€not€address€the€allegedly€erroneous€jury€instructions,€whichÏwere€premised€solely€upon€a€negligence€theory€of€recovery.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.