ÿWPCÊ è¢  SjDÅ}ÝwLÁ×Öoé:J œ»Ä¸­  kßVäùx³XÂ*ÉܰyÅBé§o—+‘h…gŸäc¸Ùõ}O;>¿´ÕœˆšI©ÔÎzŒgE×Ú¢L†i÷½‹¢ÍO#óq)á¾l!³?wFºÒæÂkÛä×ýj‹´èÆXõ•º1YñîDþWß.Q•œ¢<º„[äSµÄ/û>aø(M>ßÑnFû ˆþCWNæøF„›:ì ¶ñÅä?M)b'-¶‚'Ïöõ’yH“íµÍgN DNÕ”œ2Ã\ë·Os Níço¹ÚB¤pM“aºëm¾1G«ã@&€mII|Ï)ZˆˆçJÓX½T©I‰bÆæ{(„³jÞ½•wýÅì†kéáZÕ6ü¹M›ª÷äÝfYö;á8XT¤ðÅ´Q7R£M¦ÌÁ¡^ºÝ›w6ýy>ÄÉ3â’ Ez|t¨Ñþ -bI² …z£_ãÔcžx")„Ÿ»ˆ¾Ú/¹Pâ—ÂþyÚ¢š¡mpØä/þu.*jxà'` `€€@EÔå` 8ttxP ¾ð ' tßññà@‚‚(êàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌó óÌBARBARA€Ô_ÔCORNETTÔ_Ô,à0 à àà 8 àà  à)ÐÜ,àT$àT$ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)ÌÓ6€ü(‚X˜‘X€Ð‡Xè“X6Óà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð ü L Ðà Ø àà  à)à  à01A01„9808„CV„00405Ð  \ Ðv.à Ø àà  à)Ð  l Ðà Ø àà  à)à  àWarren€CircuitÐ , | ÐDEERE€&€COMPANY,€à  à)à  àNo.€€8344Ð <Œ  ÐGENERAL€EQUIPMENT€andà  à)Ð Lœ  ÐVERNON€KEITH,à0  à)Ð\¬ T$T$ Ðà Ø àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à  à)Ð |Ì  Ðà Ø àà  à)ÌÌÔ#†X–tX¼¼¼CG#ÔÔ‡»<@»XX–tÔÓ  ÓAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURTÐ ¬ü ÐFOR€WARREN€COUNTYÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€JOHN€Ô_ÔTURNBULLÔ_Ô€PRESIDING€ÌÓ9°,X‚Xì“X€ü(‚X˜‘X9ÓÌÓ  ÓÌHELEN€Ô_ÔLOFTINÔ_Ô€CORNELLÌ3635€Ô_ÔWoodmontÔ_Ô€BoulevardÌNashville,€Tennessee€37215ÌÌCHARLES€E.€Ô_ÔHARDIMANÔ_Ô,€JR.Ì309€West€Due€West€AvenueÌMadison,€Tennessee€37115ÌÌÔ#†X–tX»»<@Ð#ÔÔ‡¼¼C¼XX–tÔATTORNEYS€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÐ Œ$Ü ÐÌSAMUEL€L.€Ô_ÔFELKERÔ_ÔÌJOHN€C.€Ô_ÔHAYWORTHÔ_ÔÌBASS,€BERRY€&€SIMS€PLCÌ2700€First€American€CenterÌNashville,€Tennessee€37238ÌÌATTORNEYS€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEESÌÌÓ  Óò òAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDó ó€Ð ,/|*( ÐÓ  ÓÌà Ø àà ¼ àÌà Ø àà ¼ àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÌCONCUR:ÌÌCANTRELL,€J.ÌCAIN,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓòòÔ#†X–tX¼¼¼Cæ#ÔÔ‡°¡f°XX–tÔÐ  Ð9 52 ÐÑüšÑâ âÑ7€<@»»dXXdì7ÑÑ€ Ñâ âÑ  ÑñõñOPINIONóóÔ#†X–tX°°¡f #ÔÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÓ9°,X°4ì“X°,X‚Xì“X9ÓÔ€¼¼C¼XX–tÔà  àThis€personal€injury€case€arose€when€Plaintiff€Barbara€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€sustainedÐ T¤ Ðinjuries€while€operating€a€lawn€mower€manufactured€by€Defendant€Deere€&ÏCompany€and€sold€by€General€Equipment€and€its€owner€Vernon€Keith.€€Ms.ÏÔ_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€sued,€€alleging€negligence,€breach€of€warranty,€and€strict€liability.€€SheÏalso€sought€punitive€damages.€€The€first€trial€concluded€with€a€directed€verdict€forÏthe€defendants€at€the€conclusion€of€the€evidence.€€The€trial€court,€however,€grantedÏMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€a€new€trial.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€€In€the€second€trial,€the€Ô‡¼t‡¼¼¼¼CÔcourt€granted€directed€verdictsÐ d Ðto€Vernon€Keith€on€all€issues,€to€both€General€Equipment€and€Deere€&€CompanyÏon€the€issues€of€negligence€and€punitive€damages€and€to€General€Equipment€onÏthe€strict€liability€claim.€€The€Ô#†¼¼C¼¼¼t‡í#Ôjury€returned€a€defense€verdict€on€the€remainingÐ ¸ Ðbreach€of€warranty€and€strict€liability€claims.€€€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€appeals,€alleging€tenÏerrors.€€We€affirm.Ìà  àÔ‡¼t‡¼¼¼¼CÔBarbara€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€injured€her€€right€arm€and€left€knee€in€June€1993,€whenÐ D"” Ðshe€drove€her€father's€riding€lawn€mower€off€a€three„foot€embankment.€ÏAccording€to€the€trial€court,€the€parties€stipulated€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€sustainedÏinjuries€in€the€amount€of€$5,000.€Ô#†¼¼C¼¼¼t‡÷#ÔÔ‡¼t‡¼¼¼¼CÔÐ È($  Ðà  àThe€accident€at€issue€occurred€after€the€mower's€third€use€as€Ms.ÏÔ_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€was€attempting€to€turn€left€and€run€the€mower€parallel€to€a€retaining€wall.€ÏIts€steering€purportedly€locked€and€the€mower€would€not€turn.€Ms.€CornettÏmaintained€she€had€insufficient€time€to€brake€Ô#†¼¼C¼¼¼t‡Ž#ÔÔ‡¼t‡¼¼¼¼CÔbefore€the€mower€careened€overÐ x1È,( Ðthe€embankment€because€€both€the€clutch€and€the€brake€had€to€be€engaged€beforeÏthe€mower€would€stopÔ#†¼¼C¼¼¼t‡ #ÔÔ‡¼t‡¼¼¼¼CÔ.€€Ð Ð5 1, Ðà  àFor€the€second€trial,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€retained€three€experts.€€They€theorized€Ïthat€the€metal€in€the€mower's€wheel€stops€was€defective€and€the€wheels€bentÏoutward,€allowing€the€steering€mechanism€to€lock€in€a€fully€steered€position,Ïcausing€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€injury.€Ô#†¼_y»»¼zî#ÔÔ‡¼z»»¼_yÔ€Her€experts€also€determined€that€(1)€Ô_ÔmisassemblyÔ_ÔÐ ø H Ðof€the€gasoline€over„flow€hose€could€permit€it€to€entangle€with€the€steering€sectorÏgear;€(2)€the€plastic€housing€for€the€steering€sector€gear,€steering€rod,€andÏgasoline€over„flow€hose,€which€they€identified€as€the€steering€pedestal,€was€soÏweak,€it€could€fracture,€resulting€in€aÔ#†¼_y»»¼z—#ÔÔ‡¼z»»¼_yÔ€loss€of€steering;€and€(3)€the€two„pedalÐ X¨ Ðbraking€system€represented€a€design€defect€and€an€unreasonable€danger.Ô#†¼_y»»¼zX#ÔÔ‡¼z»»¼_yÔ€€PriorÐ pÀ Ðto€trial,€the€court€limited€these€experts'€testimony€to€the€mower's€wheel€stops€andÏexcluded€testimony€concerning€the€steering€pedestal€or€gasoline€overflow€hose.€Ïà  àDuring€voir€dire,€several€Ô_ÔvenirepersonsÔ_Ô€admitted€to€knowing€VernonÏKeith.€€The€trial€court€inquired€whether€their€relationship€with€Keith€was€suchÏthat€they€would€feel€discomfort€if€they€had€to€decide€the€lawsuit€against€him.ÏThose€that€unequivocally€answered€in€the€affirmative€were€excused.€€The€courtÏpermitted€additional€voir€dire€by€counsel€on€those€who€were€unsure.ÌÔ#†¼_y»»¼z#ÔÔ‡¼z»»¼_yÔà  àAt€the€close€of€the€evidence,€the€trial€court€granted€directed€verdicts€toÐ 0&€!  Ðall€the€defendants€on€the€issues€of€negligence€and€punitive€damages.€€GeneralÏEquipment€was€also€granted€a€directed€verdict€on€the€strict€liability€claim.€€TheÏcourt€directed€verdicts€for€Vernon€Keith€on€all€issues.€€The€jury€found€for€theÏdefendants€on€the€remaining€issues.€€After€the€verdict€was€announced,€theÏforeman€complimented€the€members€of€the€jury€and€then€stated,€"due€to€the€factÏthat€the€plaintiff€failed€to€proof€[sic]€beyond€a€shadow€of€a€doubt€it€was€faultyÏequipment,€we€had€to€go€the€way€we€did."ÌÌÐ 9X42 Ї€à@¦¦-êàI.ˆÐ ° Ðà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€excluding€her€experts'Ïtestimony€concerning€defects€on€the€mower€other€than€the€wheel€stops.€€ÏAppellees€respond€that€the€absence€of€any€evidence€supporting€the€other€theoriesÏrendered€them€irrelevant.€€Ìà  àTrial€courts€perform€a€Ô_ÔgatekeepingÔ_Ô€function€to€guard€the€jury€fromÏconsidering€as€evidence€speculation€presented€in€the€guise€of€legitimateÏscientifically€based€expert€opinion.€€òò€Ô_ÔMcDanielÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔCSXÔ_Ô€Transp.,€Inc.,óó€955€S.W.2dÐ X¨ Ð259,€263€(Tenn.€1997),€òòcert.€denied,óó€__U.S.€__,€118€S.Ct.€2296,€141€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.2d€157Ð pÀ Ð(1998).€€€When€an€expert's€opinion€lacks€a€factual€basis,€it€has€no€probative€valueÏand€is€therefore€irrelevant€and€inadmissible.€€òò€See€State€v.€Williamsóó,€657€S.W.2dÐ  ð Ð405,€412„413€(Tenn.€1983),€òòcert.€denied,óó€465€U.S.€1073,€104€S.Ct.€1429,€79Ð ¸ ÐÔ_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.2d.€753€(1984).€Ô#†¼_y»»¼z¿#ÔÔ‡¼z»»¼_yÔ€An€expert's€speculative€testimony€Ð Ð  ÐÓÓà8  àthat€a€certain€thing€is€possible€is€no€evidence€at€all.€€HisÏopinion€that€a€certain€thing€is€possible€is€no€more€valid€thanÏthe€jury's€€own€speculation€as€to€what€is€or€is€not€possible€.€Ï.€€.€€.€The€mere€possibility€of€a€causal€relationship,€withoutÏmore,€is€insufficient.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐòòÌÓÓÔ_ÔKilpatrickÔ_Ô€v.€Bryantóó,€868€S.W.2d€594,€602€(Tenn.€1993)€(quoting€òòLindsey€v.Ð 0&€!  ÐMiami€Development€Corp.óó,€689€S.W.2d€856,€861„861€(Tenn.€1985)).€€€TheÐ H(˜#" Ðexclusion€of€expert€testimony€is€reviewed€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSee€State€v.Ð `*°%$ ÐÔ_ÔTizzardÔ_Ôóó,€897€S.W.2d€732,€748€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1994).Ð x,È'& ÐÓÃ$ÓÓÓ€Ô#†¼_y»»¼z"##ÔÔ‡¼z»»¼_yÔ€à  àThe€excluded€testimony€at€issue€was€as€follows:€(1)€the€over„flow€hoseÐ .à)( Ðmay€have€interfered€with€the€steering€gears;€(2)€the€steering€pedestal€could€haveÏfractured€and€interfered€with€the€steering;€and€(3)€Ô#†¼_y»»¼zø&#ÔÔ‡¼z»»¼_yÔthe€two„pedal€braking€systemÐ À2., Ðwas€unreasonably€dangerous.€€€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€has€pointed€to€no€evidence€showingÏthat€the€over„flow€hose€on€the€mower€she€used€actually€did€interfere€with€theÏsteering€gears€or€that€the€steering€pedestal€actually€fractured.€€Absent€suchÐ 9X42 Ðevidence,€there€was€no€factual€basis€for€admitting€the€testimony,€rendering€itÏpurely€speculative.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€own€testimony€that€the€accident€occurred€soÏquickly€she€never€applied€the€brakes€rendered€irrelevant€and€inadmissible€theÏtestimony€that€the€two„pedal€braking€system€was€unreasonably€dangerous.€€InÏlight€of€the€total€absence€of€proof€that€the€mower€at€issue€showed€any€signs€ofÏtheseÔ#†¼_y»»¼z((#ÔÔ‡¼z»»¼_yÔ€defects€and€the€undisputed€evidence€that€no€attempt€to€brake€was€made,€weÐ (x  Ðcannot€say€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€excluding€the€testimony€atÏissue.€€òòId.Ð X¨ ÐóóÔ#†¼_y»»¼ze+#Ôà@-êàII.ˆÐ pÀ Ðà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€excuse€threeÏjurors€for€cause.€€She€claims€the€first€had€lived€near€Vernon€Keith,€the€secondÏplayed€basketball€with€him,€and€the€third€had€business€dealings€with€him€over€theÏyears.€€She€asserts€in€her€brief,€"[Ô_Ôa]lthoughÔ_Ô€counsel€for€Plaintiff€requested€thatÏthese€jurors€be€challenged€for€cause€and€removed€from€the€jury,€the€CourtÏrefused€to€do€so,€and€these€persons€comprised€part€of€the€June€8„10,€1998€juryÏin€this€case."€Ìà  àThe€record€ñöñbeliesñöññ÷ñdoes€not€supportñ÷ñ€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€statement€that€all€three€jurorsÏserved€on€the€jury€and€that€she€challenged€them€all€for€cause.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€òò€óóOnly€one€of€theseÐ ´($" Ðthree€Ô_ÔvenirepersonsÔ_Ô,€the€individual€who€played€basketball€with€Mr.€Keith,€Mr.ÏVinson,€actually€served€as€a€juror.€€When€asked€if€his€relationship€with€Mr.€KeithÏwould€impede€his€ability€to€act€impartially,€this€juror€stated,€"I€don't€think€so,€butÏit€might€make€me€a€little€uncomfortable."€€€He€later€stated€he€would€try€not€to€letÐ D1”,* Ðthe€relationship€interfere€if€it€was€a€close€case,€but€added€that€he€"did€not€knowÏfor€sure."€€The€trial€court€then€allowed€counsel€to€question€the€juror€further.€€€Ìà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€never€challenged€this€decision.€€Nor€did€she€€question€theÏjuror€further€regarding€his€relationship€with€Mr.€Keith.€€òòCompare€Ô_ÔRickettsÔ_Ô€v.Ð  l ÐCarteróó,€918€S.W.2d€419€(Tenn.€1996).€€Furthermore,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€failed€toÐ @  Ðrequest€the€court€to€strike€the€juror€for€cause€or€peremptorily€strike€him€herself.€Ï€€€The€issue€is,€therefore,€waived.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36€(a);€€òòsee€State€v.Ð ˆØ  ÐLautenschlageróó,€No.€02C01„9702„CC„00051,€1998€WL€28048€at€*€3€€(Tenn.Ð ¬ü ÐCrim.€App.€January€26,€1998)€(Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€denied).€€"TheÏright€to€challenge€òòpropter€defectumóó€[on€account€of€an€alleged€legalÐ ôD Ðdisqualification]€ends€when€the€jurors€are€accepted€and€sworn.€€By€waiver€theÏjuror€becomes€a€legal€juror."€€òòManning€v.€Stateóó,€155€Tenn.€266,€272,€292€S.W.Ð <Œ Ð451,€453„454€(1926).€€Ìà@XX,êàIII.ˆÌà  àMs.€Cornett€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€a€change€Ïof€venue,€mistrial€or€new€trial€based€the€jury's€familiarity€with€the€parties.€€WeÏdisagree.Ìà  àIn€all€civil€jury€trials,€"the€venue€may€be€changed,€at€any€time€beforeÏtrial,€upon€good€cause€shown€.€€.€€.€€."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„4„201€(1)€(Supp.Ï1995).€€The€party€€seeking€a€change€of€venue€ÌÓÓà8  àshall€make€a€statement€of€facts,€in€writing,€under€oath€orÏaffirmation,€that€he€verily€believes€that,€owing€to€prejudice,Ïor€other€causes,€then€existing,€he€cannot€have€a€fair€andÏimpartial€trial€in€the€county,€€.€€.€€.€where€the€cause€is€pending,Ïthe€truth€of€which€statement€shall,€in€a€court€of€record,€beÏverified€and€supported€by€the€oath€of€at€least€three€(3),€€.€€.€€.€Ïrespectable€and€disinterested€€persons.€€Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€20„4„203€(1980).€€The€denial€of€a€motion€for€change€of€venueÐ "9r41 Ðis€ordinarily€reviewed€for€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSee€Tennessee€Gas€TransmissionÐ ° ÐCo.€v.€Ô_ÔOakleyÔ_Ôóó,€193€Tenn.€638,€642,€249€S.W.2d€880,€881€(1952).€Ð Ô$ Ðà  àPrior€to€trial,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€moved€for€a€change€of€venue€on€the€groundÏthat€Warren€County€was€an€inconvenient€forum€for€her€attorneys€and€witnessesÏand€an€impartial€jury€could€not€be€obtained€due€to€the€venire's€familiarity€withÏMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô,€Mr.€Keith,€and€General€Equipment.€As€verifying€and€supportingÏwitnesses,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€offered€David€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô,€Carey€Ô_ÔHambrickÔ_Ô,€one€of€Ms.ÏÔ_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€witnesses,€and€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€two€attorneys.€€€After€reviewing€Appellees'Ïresponse€to€the€motion,€€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€provided€additional€witnesses.€€Ìà  àWe€see€no€abuse€of€discretion€here.€€The€reasons€underlying€Ms.ÏÔ_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€motion€for€change€of€venue€were€insufficient€to€establish€"good€cause."ÏWe€reject€her€contention€that€mere€knowledge€of€a€party's€existence,€withoutÏmore,€€justifies€a€change€of€venue.€€Further,€€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€made€no€showing€thatÏthe€denial€of€this€motion€was€prejudicial€to€her.€€òòSee€Scott€v.€Jones€BrothersÐ „ Ô ÐConstr.€Inc.óó,€960€S.W.2d€589,€594€(Tenn.€App.€1997)€€(both€harm€and€error€areÐ ¨"ø Ðrequired€for€reversal);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36€(b).€Ìà  àIn€her€brief,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€states,€"In€the€present€case,€where€all€of€theÏjurors€knew€Defendant€Vernon€Keith,€many€of€them€knowing€him€well€,€€.€€.€€.Ïvenue€should€have€been€changed.€€.€€.€€."€€€The€record€refutes€this€statement.€€InÏfact,€six€prospective€jurors€knew€him,€but€only€one€served€as€a€juror.€€Voir€direÏquestioning€established€that€most€of€the€jurors€were€not€familiar€with€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_ÔÏor€the€defendantsñøñ,€including€Mr.€Keithñøñ.€€€Ìà  àAs€to€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€argument€concerning€the€newspaper€articles,€theÏrecord€shows€that€during€trial€the€local€paper€published€an€€article€on€Ms.ÏÔ_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€law€suit.€€The€trial€court€stated€to€the€jury:Ð 8`30 ÐÓÓà8  àIt's€been€brought€to€my€attention€there€was€a€little€article€andÏ[sic]€contains€some€inaccuracies€and€whether€it€is€accurate€orÏnot.€€The€jury€will€be€disregarding€this€if€they€consider€anyÏstory€in€the€newspaper.€€You€don't€try€cases€based€uponÏnewspaper€stories€or€street€talk.€€You€will€disregard€theÏnewspaper.€€That€is€not€evidence€and€cannot€be€consideredÏby€the€jury€in€making€their€determination€of€this€case.€€TheÏparties€stipulated€as€a€result€of€injuries€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_ÔÏsustained€in€the€amount€of€$5,000€and€those€bills€necessaryÏfor€her€treatment€and€reasonable€in€that€amount.€€That€doesÏnot€mean€the€defendant€says€they€owe€them.€€In€fact,€they€sayÏthey€do€not€because€they€are€not€at€fault€but€they€areÏstipulating€those€bills,€is€that€correct?€€€ÓÓÐ  Ð  Ð  ÐBoth€counsel€answered€in€the€affirmative.€€The€record€shows€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_ÔÏnever€requested€that€the€court€inquire€whether€any€jurors€had€actually€read€theÏpaper.€€She€never€objected€to€the€trial€court's€handling€of€the€matter.€€Nor€did€sheÏrenew€her€motion€for€change€of€venue€or€seek€a€mistrial.€€Her€failure€to€takeÏaction€to€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€the€error,€if€any,€or€otherwise€raise€thisÏissue€belowñùñ,ñùñ€or€ñúñto€ñúñdemonstrate€prejudice,€precludes€reversal€on€this€ground.€ÏTenn.ñûñ€ñûñR.ñüñ€ñüñApp.ñýñ€ñýñP.€36€(a);€òòsee€Simpson€v.€Frontier€Community€Credit€Unionóó,€810Ð „ Ô ÐS.W.2d€147,€153€(Tenn.€1991)€(issues€not€properly€raised€in€the€trial€court€cannotÏbe€asserted€for€the€first€time€on€appeal).€Ìà@RR-êàIV.ˆÌà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€substitute€aÏjuror€or€grant€a€mistrial€when€the€jury€foreman€fell€asleep€numerous€times€duringÏtrial.€€€Ìà  àHaving€read€and€considered€the€record,€we€find€nothing€in€the€trialÏtranscript€showing€that€any€of€the€jurors€were€sleeping.€€Nor€is€there€proof€thatÏMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€pointed€out€this€alleged€fact€to€the€trial€court,€much€less€raised€anÏobjection€or€moved€for€a€mistrial.€€Ô_ÔTenn.R.App.P.Ô_Ô€36€(a).€€This€record€leaves€usÏwith€nothing€to€review.Ð  8`30 Ѐ€à@yy-êàV.ˆÐ ° Ðà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€contends€that€reversal€is€required€because€the€trial€courtÏadmitted€into€evidence€over„sized€enlargements€of€prejudicial€photographs€of€an€Ïarea€near€the€accident€site.€€€She€maintains€that€admission€of€the€exhibits€violatedÏTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€403.€€Ìà  àTennessee€courts€follow€a€policy€of€liberality€in€the€admission€ofÏphotographs€at€trial.€€òòSee€State€v.€Banksóó,€564€S.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€1978).€Ð ˆØ  Ð"The€admissibility€of€photographs€lies€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trialÏcourt"€after€due€consideration€of€the€evidence's€relevance,€probative€value€andÏpotential€for€unfair€prejudice.€€òò€Id.;€€óóTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€403.€€Ð ôD Ðà  àThe€photographs€at€issue€accurately€depicted€the€yard,€although€notÏnecessarily€the€exact€location,€where€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€was€mowing€when€her€injuriesÏoccurred.€€€Defense€counsel€presented€the€photographs€in€an€attempt€to€elicit€Ms.ÏÔ_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€testimony€on€where€in€the€yard€her€injury€occurred.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô'sÏinability€to€consistently€identify€the€exact€location€of€her€spill€left€the€issueÏunresolved,€which€persuades€us€that€the€photographs€were€not€irrelevant.€€In€lightÏof€her€failure€to€specify€or€demonstrate€how€the€photographs€prejudiced€her€case,Ïwe€cannot€say€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€admitting€them.€€€òòSee€Scottóó,€Ð )d$" Ð960€S.W.2d€at€594.Ìà@RR-êàVI.ˆÌà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€instruct€theÏjury€to€disregard€references€to€her€ownership€of€a€Mercedes€Benz€raised€onÏcross„examination.€€She€asserts€that€the€court€agreed€to€instruct€the€jury€toÏdisregard€the€evidence€but€failed€to€do€so.Ìà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€failure€to€assert€or€establish€any€prejudice€arising€fromÐ 8`30 Ðthe€evidence€is€fatal€to€her€argument.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36€(b).€€€€Moreover,Ïhaving€reviewed€the€record,€we€believe€the€trial€court's€failure€to€give€theÏinstruction€was€€inadvertent.€€The€record€reveals€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€did€nothing€toÏcall€this€omission€to€the€court's€attention€or€otherwise€prevent€the€alleged€error.€ÏRelief€is€not€required€under€these€circumstances.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36€(a);€òòSeeÐ @  ÐBarrett€v.€Raymond€Corp.,óó€No.€59,€1991€WL€€4996€at€*€4€(Tenn.€App.€JanuaryÐ d´  Ð24,€1991)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).Ìà@++,êàVII.ˆÌà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€directing€the€verdicts€forÏthe€defendants.€€Although€she€broadly€frames€the€issue,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€limits€herÏargument€to€the€strict€liability€claim,€asserting€that€issues€of€fact€remained€to€beÏtried€on€whether€the€mower€was€defective€or€unreasonably€dangerous.€€òòSee€StateÐ <Œ Ðv.€Ô_ÔMcKayÔ_Ôóó,€680€S.W.2d€447,€454€(Tenn.€1984),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€470€U.S.€1034,€105Ð `° ÐS.Ct.€1412,€84€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.2d€795€(1985)€(when€an€appellant€fails€to€articulate€reasonsÏto€support€a€Ô_ÔconclusoryÔ_Ô€statement,€the€issue€may€be€deemed€waived).€SheÏmaintains€the€issue€of€whether€the€metal€used€in€fabricating€the€wheel€stops€wasÏsufficiently€strong€was€a€jury€question.Ìà  àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„106€(b)€(1980)€bars€strict€liability€actionsÏagainst€€sellers€of€ÌÓÓà8  àa€product€which€is€alleged€to€contain€a€defective€conditionÏunreasonably€dangerous€to€the€buyer,€user€or€consumerÏunless€the€seller€is€also€the€manufacturer€of€the€product€or€theÏmanufacturer€of€the€part€thereof€claimed€to€be€defective,€orÏunless€the€manufacturer€of€the€product€or€part€in€questionÏshall€not€be€subject€to€service€of€process€in€the€state€ofÏTennessee€or€service€cannot€be€secured€by€the€long„armÏstatutes€of€Tennessee€or€unless€such€manufacturer€had€beenÏjudicially€declared€insolvent.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓÓà  àThe€record€shows€that€the€trial€court€did€not€grant€a€directed€verdict€onÐ 8`30 Ðthe€strict€liability€claim€against€Deere€&€Company.€€€As€noted,€the€jury€resolvedÏthat€issue€against€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô.€€The€record€also€reveals€that€Mr.€Keith€andÏGeneral€Equipment€were€merely€sellers,€not€the€manufacturers€of€the€mower€atÏissue,€and€€Deere€and€Company,€the€manufacturer,€was€amenable€to€suit€in€thisÏjurisdiction.€€€Thus,€€the€strict€liability€claim€could€not€be€maintained€against€theÏsellers,€Mr.€Keith€and€General€Equipment.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„28„106€(b).€ÏAccordingly,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€argument€€lacks€merit.Ìà@,êàVIII.ˆÌà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€maintains€that€the€verdict€is€contrary€to€the€weight€of€theÏevidence.€€She€argues€that€the€evidence€preponderated€in€her€favor.€€Ìà  àIn€effect,€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€seeks€a€Ô_ÔreweighingÔ_Ô€of€the€evidence.€€This€weÏcannot€do.ÌÓÓà8  àIt€is€the€time€honored€rule€in€this€State€that€in€reviewing€aÏjudgment€based€upon€a€jury€verdict€the€appellate€courts€areÏnot€at€liberty€to€weigh€the€evidence€or€to€decide€where€theÏpreponderance€lies,€but€are€limited€to€determining€whetherÏthere€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict;€and€inÏdetermining€whether€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€theÏverdict,€the€appellate€court€is€required€to€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€all€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€verdict,€toÏassume€the€truth€of€all€that€tends€to€support€it,€allowing€allÏreasonable€inferences€to€sustain€the€verdict,€and€to€disregardÏall€to€the€contrary.€€Having€thus€examined€the€record,€if€thereÏbe€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€verdict,€it€must€beÏaffirmed;€€if€it€were€otherwise,€the€parties€would€be€deprivedÏof€their€constitutional€right€to€trial€by€jury.€Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòÔ_ÔCrabtreeÔ_Ô€Masonry€Co.€v.€C€&€R€Const.,€Inc.,óó€575€S.W.2d€4,€5€(Tenn.€1978);Ð n.¾)' ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13€(d).€€€Ìà  àThe€jury€specifically€rejected€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€strict€liability€and€breachÏof€warranty€claims.€€Under€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€€those€facts€presupposeÏa€finding,€fatal€to€all€the€claims€alleged,€that€the€mower€at€issue€was€not€defectiveÏor€unreasonably€dangerous.€€€òòSee€Broader€v.€Pedigreeóó,€541€S.W.2d€402,€404Ð "9r41 Ð(Tenn.€1976).Ìà  àThe€evidence€amply€supports€that€finding.€€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€experts€Ïtestified€that€the€accident€was€caused€by€weak€wheel€stops€on€the€mower€whichÏbent€outward,€allowing€the€steering€to€lock€in€the€fully„turned€position.€ÏHowever,€the€mechanic€who€repaired€the€mower€shortly€after€the€accidentÏtestified€that€€at€that€time€the€wheel€stops€were€straight€up€in€the€proper€position,Ïthe€same€as€when€they€left€the€factory.€€€He€stated€that€€he€found€nothing€wrongÏwith€the€mower's€steering€mechanism.€€This€evidence,€viewed€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€verdict,€precludes€reversal.Ìà@RR-êàIX.ˆÌà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€aÏmistrial€or€set€aside€the€verdict€on€the€basis€that€the€foreman,€after€announcingÏthe€verdict,€stated,€"due€to€the€fact€that€the€plaintiff€failed€to€proof€[sic]€beyondÏa€shadow€of€a€doubt€it€was€faulty€equipment€we€had€to€go€the€way€we€did."€€SheÏalso€claims€reversal€is€required€because€the€previously„mentioned€newspaperÏarticle€about€the€trial€was€published€on€the€third€day€of€trial.Ìà  àThe€record€shows€that€the€jury€was€properly€instructed€€on€the€standardÏof€proof€and€was€permitted€to€take€the€instructions€into€the€jury€room.€€It€alsoÏshows€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€never€responded€to€the€foreman's€comment.€€She€madeÏno€objection€and€did€not€seek€a€mistrial.€€The€record€contains€no€evidence€thatÏan€incorrect€standard€of€proof€was€actually€applied€by€the€jury.Ìà  à"Parties€seeking€a€new€trial€because€of€alleged€jury€misconduct€must,Ïat€the€outset,€satisfy€the€court€that€they€have€admissible€evidence€on€the€issue."€ÏòòÔ_ÔCaldararoÔ_Ô€v.€Vanderbilt€Universityóó,€794€S.W.2d€738,€741€(Tenn.€App.€1990);€Ð ì5<1. Ðòòsee€Patton€v.€Roseóó,€892€S.W.2d€410,€413„414€(Tenn.€App.€1994).€€OurÐ 8`30 Ðconsideration€of€this€question€is€controlled€by€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€606€(b).€€That€ruleÏlimits€inquiry€into€the€validity€of€a€verdict€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8  àUpon€an€inquiry€into€the€validity€of€a€verdict€or€anÏindictment,€a€juror€may€not€testify€as€to€any€matter€orÏstatement€occurring€during€the€course€of€the€jury'sÏdeliberations€or€to€the€effect€of€anything€upon€any€juror'sÏmind€or€emotion€as€influencing€that€juror€to€assent€to€orÏdissent€from€the€verdict€or€indictment€or€concerning€theÏjuror's€mental€processes,€except€that€a€juror€may€testify€onÏthe€question€of€whether€extraneous€prejudicial€informationÏwas€improperly€brought€to€the€jury's€attention,€whether€anyÏoutside€influence€was€improperly€brought€to€bear€upon€anyÏjuror,€or€whether€the€jurors€agreed€in€advance€to€be€bound€byÏa€quotient€or€gambling€verdict€without€further€discussion;Ïnor€may€a€juror's€affidavit€or€evidence€of€any€statement€byÏthe€juror€concerning€a€matter€about€which€the€juror€would€beÏprecluded€from€testifying€be€received€for€these€purposes.€Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€606€(b).€€€Ìà  àWe€reject€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€characterization€of€the€foreman's€comment€asÏ"extraneous€prejudicial€information."€€Ordinarily,€the€issue€of€whether€a€jury€hasÏmisapplied€the€law€is€brought€to€the€court's€attention€by€juror€affidavits€orÏtestimony€supporting€a€motion€for€new€trial,€rather€than,€as€here,€by€post„verdictÏjuror€comment.€€When€raised€in€that€context,€our€courts€have€consistently€heldÏthat€"[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€incorrect€application€of€an€otherwise€valid€jury€instruction€does€notÏconstitute€the€impropriety€necessary€to€allow€a€juror€to€impeach€his€verdict€byÏaffidavit."€€òòState€v.€Wardóó,€663€S.W.2d€805,€808€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1983);€òòseeÐ 8+ˆ&$ ÐÔ_ÔGossÔ_Ô€v.€Hutchinsóó€751€S.W.2d€821,€828€(Tenn.€1988);€òòTennessee€Eastern€Electric€Ð \-¬(& ÐCo.€v.€Linkóó,€6€Tenn.€App.€617,€625€(1926)òò€óó.€Ð €/Ð*( ÐÓÓà8  àIt€is€well€settled€law€in€this€state€that€a€juror€can€not€impeachÏher€verdict,€and€that€a€new€trial€can€not€be€granted€upon€theÏaffidavit€of€a€juror€that€she€misunderstood€the€instructionsÏgiven€the€jury€by€the€trial€judge,€provided€the€instructionsÏwere€correct.Ð  Ð  Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€632€S.W.2d€542,€549€(Tenn.€1982),€òòcert.€denied,óó€459€U.S.€882,Ð 8`30 Ð103€S.Ct.€183,€74€Ô_ÔL.EdÔ_Ô.2d.€148)€(1982).€€We€believe€this€same€reasoning€appliesÏwhere,€as€here,€the€jury€was€properly€instructed€and€the€issue€of€€the€jury'sÏpotential€€improper€application€of€the€law€was€verbally€raised,€if€at€all,€€by€a€layÏjuror's€gratuitous€comment€shortly€after€the€verdict€was€rendered.€€As€notedÏpreviously,€the€evidence€was€more€than€sufficient€to€support€the€verdict€under€theÏproper€standard€of€proof.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ôà ¼ àÐ d´  Ðà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€contends€that€the€€previously„mentioned€newspaper€articleÏpublished€on€the€third€day€of€trial€constituted€extraneous€prejudicial€information.€ÏIn€her€brief€she€argues€that€"members€of€the€jury€were€exposed€to€a€newspaperÏarticle€prejudicial€to€Plaintiff's€case.€€.€€.€€."€€The€record,€however,€provides€noÏevidence€that€any€of€the€jurors€were€exposed€to€the€article€published€on€the€thirdÏday€of€trial.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔCaldararoÔ_Ôóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€742€(if€found€to€be€prejudicial,€aÐ <Œ Ðjuror's€exposure€to€news€items€about€the€trial€could€warrant€a€new€trial).€€AbsentÏa€such€a€showing,€prejudice€cannot€be€proved.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36€(b).€€Ms.ÏÔ_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€characterization€of€the€purported€sleeping€juror€as€extraneousÏprejudicial€information€within€the€meaning€of€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€606€(b)€is€simplyÏinaccurate.€Ìà@yy-êàX.ˆÌà  àMs.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€twice€sanctioning€herÏcounsel€for€failure€to€conduct€hearings€by€telephone.׃ü×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€She€claims€the€firstÐ \-¬(& Ðoccasion€occurred€during€a€March€1998€hearing€on€her€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€and€the€second€occurred€during€a€post„trial€hearing€on€discretionaryÏcosts.€€Ìà  àThe€record€belies€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô's€characterization€of€the€reason€for€theÏsanctions€arising€from€the€summary€judgment€hearing.€€In€a€written€order€ofÏMarch€20,€1998,€the€trial€court€assessed€Ms.€Ô_ÔCornettÔ_Ô€$400€in€costs€because€herÏmotion€bordered€on€the€frivolous.€€The€order€included€no€mention€of€a€requestÏfor€a€hearing€by€telephone€conference.€€The€trial€court's€assessment€did€notÏconstitute€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSee€Krug€v.€Krugóó,€838€S.W.2d€197,€205€(Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€1992).Ìà  àThe€second€sanction€occurred€in€conjunction€with€the€Defendants'Ïmotion€for€discretionary€costs.€€In€its€order€imposing€a€$500€sanction€on€Ms.ÏCornett's€counsel,€the€trial€court€noted€that€she€insisted€that€Defendants'€motionÏbe€heard€in€open€court,€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€€Defendants€waived€oralÏargument.€€€Inasmuch€as€Ms.€Cornett's€counsel€refused€to€permit€a€hearing€byÏconference€call,€and€in€so€doing€required€defense€counsel€to€undertake€anÏunnecessary€out„of„town€trip,€we€decline€to€find€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion.€Ìà  àTo€summarize,€we€affirm€the€judgment€for€the€defendants€in€its€totality.€ÏIn€light€of€this€disposition,€we€need€not€reach€Appellees'€contention€that€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€granting€Ms.€Cornett's€€motion€for€new€trial€after€the€initial€trial.€Ï€Appellees'€motion€to€dismiss€this€appeal€is€denied.€€The€case€is€remanded€for€Ð  ¤1ô,* Ðsuch€further€proceedings€as€may€be€necessary.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€Ms.€Cornett€forÏwhich€execution€may€issue.ÌÔ‡¼z»»¼_yÔÓÓÌÌà0  àà0¼ T$ T$à_____________________________Ð ¼T$¼T$ Ðà  àà ¼ àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE€(M.S.)ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÔ#†¼_y»»¼zˆ#ÔÐ ¸ ÐÌ