ÿWPC–  énì|!ÅOW’Nü×ÖÏ ÊÓçt{>¦Þ#¹ò®#™;ß¾gRFª“èá]<0üþ¬Lši6¦ŒÔ—X3Ñ)æ.)ÐÆJékèžÁ —6zš`lÝèjÿC£žoÆeÐC­h>³ª6`/aXÔb†´Î̳ÆáMÚSS7ä<†ç`Ç8S·¥¢"Áq‰TG{7Ý™xÁgÃù0ÀŽbZ=¼¬nFÔfäåèŒÇ„!h±@ƺ@Íï8GPZæipÙYKi€®@íüþ&‚+iu›Àz³zº#5 ;CïÌ㱺Œ,Ñ;\ïâ^wðûÑ;A³p`Q¥;m@äß2IJ=ªTÒ®åª7°V¼¾’ é0Ó«` xTÐýsÝÌÐù¶í?ó]38M¤9LÊRd²8{\hgg'åöÐäìšuý niFÕ9 Ó¨äÙl7ä\Žá_ŸõÛ¬ß1þßæÉš´ìÔÒŒ ‰íøûtÚ<»¬*ºQ€çß®oÉ¥1m®QºpF–X Bl´M•Q¥æTºæñ-2è%Î5¼Š$ )aû¢.ŠVY6>@¥ÌÇ瘥nZ—þ[Å´´l‡Uö#œï¡krãwçw0(Â~l˜ƒÉv Z#ÁìUN­ %û 0: UN; U@‰ ^ É wÕ 4Ù í ü mþ þ V 0~k 0Dé B- o o o o o Ew w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w By ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regularô\  `(Times NewRomanTT¨œi) ª~g)H'¢3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ LÝ ƒÄ($ÝÔUSUS.,Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ô ¼ òXXÔTo€the€extent€the€photographs€of€the€rear€of€Ms.€Andrewsðð€car€after€Mr.€Salter€hit€her€showed€no€or€littleÐ ° Ðvisible€damage,€they€reflected€any€damage€sustained€in€both€accidents.(.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 8Ñ8€íxXXdìXXdì8Ñ  dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡Xì(XXXÔÔ‡¼î»XXì(ÔÑ€dOÑà@ü ü ìàÔ#†Xì(X»¼î\#ÔÔ‡îúìîXXì(ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†Xì(XîîúìÁ#ÔÔ‡¼î»XXì(ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓÌMay€7,€1999€SessionÐ ^ ÐÔ#†Xì(X»¼î[#ÔÔ‡¼î»XXì(ÔÌò òÔ#†Xì(X»¼îè#ÔÔ‡¼î»XXì(ÔPOLLY€L.€ANDREWS€v.€MAURICE€J.€SALTERÔ#†Xì(X»¼î.#ÔÔ‡¼î»XXì(Ôó óÐ 2 ‚ ÐÌÔ#†Xì(X»¼î•#Ôò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€CountyÐ X ¨ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€96„C„2632€€€€€€€Thomas€W.€Brothers,€JudgeÐ D ” ÐÌßA€Y) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ l  ÐÌNo.€M1998„00953„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€9,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ g  ÐÌßA€Y) °°` dE<î` AßÐ ï?  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendantððs€automobile€ran€into€the€rear€of€the€plaintiffððs€car.€€After€the€collision,€the€plaintiffÐ ê: Ðlearned€that€she€had€sustained€a€ruptured€disk€and€commenced€the€underlying€action,€seekingÐ Ö& Ðcompensation€for€both€personal€injury€and€property€damage.€€At€trial,€the€court€admitted€evidenceÐ Â Ðthat€the€plaintiff€had€been€involved€two€prior€accidents€within€the€past€ten€months.€The€trial€courtÐ ®þ Ðgranted€a€directed€verdict€to€the€plaintiff€on€the€issue€of€liability€for€the€accident,€but€left€open€theÐ šê Ðquestion€of€whether€the€defendantððs€actions€caused€the€plaintiffððs€injuries.€€The€jury€awarded€theÐ †Ö Ðplaintiff€$2,500€in€damages,€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€her€undisputed€medical€expenses€wereÐ r Ðsubstantially€higher.€€The€plaintiff€appealed,€arguing€that€the€admission€of€the€prejudicial€andÐ ^® Ðirrelevant€evidence€of€prior€accidents€was€error€and€that€the€jury€improperly€speculated€on€the€causeÐ Jš Ðof€her€injuries.€€The€evidence€of€the€prior€accidents€was€limited,€included€no€proof€of€personalÐ 6† Ðinjuries,€and€included€no€connection€between€the€mere€occurrence€of€these€accidents€and€theÐ "r Ðplaintiffððs€injuries.€€Because€the€evidence€of€the€prior€collisions€invited€speculation,€we€reverse.Ð ^ ÐÌò òà@::ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€ˆÐ æ6 Ðà@Ãà ìàReversed€and€Remandedó óˆÐ Ò" ÐÌòòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.€M.S.óóÐ ª!ú  Ðand€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.òòóóóó,€joined.Ð –"æ! ÐÌLarry€L.€Roberts€and€Gena€B.€Lewis,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Polly€L.€Andrews.Ð n$¾# ÐÌDavid€B.€Scott€and€Dianna€Baker€Shew€for€the€appellee€Maurice€J.€Salter.€Ð F&–!% ÐÌò òà@66'ìàOPINIONó óˆÐ (n#' ÐÌÔ#†Xì(XXXì(=#ÔÔ‡Xì(XXXì(Ôà  àIn€this€personal€injury€and€property€damage€case,€Plaintiff€Polly€L.€Andrews€appeals€a€juryÐ ö)F%) Ðverdict€awarding€her€$2,500€in€damages,€which€was€only€a€fraction€of€the€uncontroverted,€out„of„Ð â*2&* ÐpocketÔ#†Xì(XXXì( #ÔÔ‡Xì(XXXì(Ô€medical€expenses€she€incurred.€Ð Î+'+ ÐÌÐ ¦-ö(- ÐÑdOÑâ âÑ8€ì(XXdìdÈ8Ñâ âÑ  Ñà  àThis€case€arose€from€an€automobile€accident€on€August€2,€1995Ô#†Xì(XXXì(S#ÔÔ‡Xì(XXXì(Ô.€€Ms.€Andrews€was€stoppedÐ ° Ðat€a€red€traffic€light€when€Mr.€Salter's€Grand€Am€ran€into€the€rear€of€her€Mustang.€€Although€noÐ œì Ðinjuries€were€reported€at€the€scene€of€the€collision€and€Ms.€Andrews€continued€on€to€work,€sheÐ ˆØ Ðsubsequently€experienced€pain,€sought€medical€care,€€and€later€discovered€that€she€had€ruptured€aÐ tÄ Ðdisk€in€her€back.€€€Her€back€injuries€required€substantial€treatment,€including€an€MRI,€€two€monthsÐ `° Ðof€physical€therapy,€cortisone€injections,€and€the€use€and€purchase€of€a€transepidural€nerve€stimulatorÐ L œ Ðwhich€distracts€patients€from€their€pain€by€sending€an€electric€shock€to€the€affected€area.€€After€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðaccident€involving€Mr.€Salter,€Ms.€Andrews€was€unable€to€perform€housework€and€other€routineÐ $ t Ðtasks€or€to€pursue€recreational€activities€as€she€had€in€the€past.€€Although€she€missed€little€work,Ð  ` Ðexcept€for€time€she€was€absent€for€doctorððs€appointments€and€treatment,€she€occasionally€had€to€lieÐ ü L  Ðon€the€floor€of€an€office€at€work€to€ease€the€pain.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àMs.€Andrews€sued,€alleging€negligence.€€She€sought€damages€for€both€personal€injuries€andÐ À  Ðproperty€damage.€€At€trial,€she€provided€evidence€that€her€medical€expenses€totaled€$10,609.19,€herÐ ¬ü  Ðlost€wages€were€$425.35,€and€the€estimate€to€fix€her€car€was€$581.42.€She€also€sought€damages€forÐ ˜è  Ðpain€and€suffering€and€future€medical€expenses.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌÔ#†Xì(XXXì(˜#Ôà  àAfter€all€the€proof€was€presented,€the€trial€judge€granted€a€directed€verdict€to€the€plaintiff€onÐ \¬ Ðthe€issue€of€liability€for€the€accident,€stating€that€no€reasonable€person€could€conclude€otherwise.€TheÐ H˜ Ðcourt€ruled€that€Mr.€Salter€was€responsible€for€any€damages€which€may€have€resulted€from€theÐ 4„ Ðaccident.€€However,€the€judge€stated€that€the€main€issues€in€the€case€were€whether€Ms.€AndrewsððÐ  p Ðinjuries€were€caused€by€the€accident€and,€if€so,€the€extent€of€those€injuries.€€€In€letting€the€damagesÐ  \ Ðissue€go€to€the€jury,€the€court€also€noted€that€the€plaintiff€had€the€burden€to€prove€what,€if€any,Ð øH Ðinjuries€she€suffered€as€a€result€of€the€accident.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThus,€the€issue€of€the€cause,€as€well€as€the€extent,€of€Ms.€Andrewsðð€injury€was€left€to€the€jury.€Ð ¼  ÐClosing€arguments€dealt€primarily€with€that€issue.€€Defendantððs€position€and€argument€was€that€theÐ ¨ø Ðdamage€to€Ms.€Andrewsðð€car€was€so€slight€that€no€visible€damage€could€be€discerned€fromÐ ”ä Ðphotographs€entered€into€evidence.€€An€impact€which€caused€so€little€property€damage,€the€argumentÐ €Ð Ðgoes,€could€not€have€resulted€in€the€amount€of€personal€injury€and€medical€costs€claimed€by€Ms.Ð l¼ ÐAndrews.€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  à€Lurking€behind€this€argument,€and€dealt€with€directly€by€Ms.€Andrewsðð€attorney€in€closing,Ð 0"€  Ðwas€information€which€had€been€conveyed€to€the€jury€that€Ms.€Andrews€had€been€involved€in€twoÐ #l! Ðother€automobile€accidents€within€a€year€prior€to€the€accident€caused€by€Mr.€Salterððs€negligence.€€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€jury€awarded€Ms.€Andrews€only€a€fraction€of€her€uncontroverted€out„of„pocket€expensesÐ à%0!$ Ðand,€apparently,€nothing€for€pain€and€suffering.€€On€appeal,€Ms.€Andrews€argues€that€the€jury€mustÐ Ì&"% Ðhave€speculated€that€some€portion€of€her€injuries€were€caused€by€her€prior€automobile€accidents.€€TheÐ ¸'#& Ðproblem€with€that,€she€argues,€is€that€there€was€absolutely€no€proof€that€she€sustained€any€injury€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€prior€accidents.€In€addition,€she€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€evidence€of€theÐ )à$( Ðprevious€automobile€accidents€because€they€were€irrelevant€and€prejudicial.Ô‡Xì(XXXì(ÔÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Їà  àIn€reviewing€the€damages€award€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€court,€we€are€requiredÐ ° Ðto€apply€the€material€evidence€rule.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).€€Appellate€review€is€limited€to€aÐ œì Ðdetermination€of€whether€material€evidence€can€be€found€in€the€record€that€supports€the€juryððs€awardÐ ˆØ Ðas€being€at€or€above€the€lower€limit€of€the€range€of€reasonableness,€giving€full€faith€and€credit€to€allÐ tÄ Ðof€the€evidence€that€tends€to€support€that€amount.€€òòSee€Poole€v.€Kroger€Co.óó,€604€S.W.2d€52,€54Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€1980).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àIn€view€of€the€facts€that€the€jury€was€confined€to€the€issue€of€damages€and€that€the€defendantÐ $ t Ðdid€not€contest€the€reasonableness€or€necessity€of€the€medical€expenses€incurred€by€Ms.€AndrewsÐ  ` Ðafter€the€accident,€we€must€agree€with€Ms.€Andrews€that€the€only€conclusion€to€be€drawn€from€theÐ ü L  Ðjuryððs€verdict€is€that€it€determined€that€all€her€injuries€were€not€caused€by€the€accident€involving€Mr.Ð è 8  ÐSalter.€€Whether€we€can€affirm€the€juryððs€conclusion€depends€upon€the€evidence€in€the€record€andÐ Ô$  Ðwhether€that€evidence€was€properly€admitted.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€to€which€Ms.€Andrews€objects€involves€two€prior€automobile€accidents.€€TheÐ ˜è  Ðfirst€occurred€ten€months€before€the€accident€with€Mr.€Salter€and€involved€a€collision€in€which€theÐ „Ô  Ðfront€of€Ms.€Andrewsðð€car€was€damaged.€€That€damage€had€been€repaired€before€the€Salter€accident.€Ð pÀ ÐThe€second€occurred€just€two€months€before€the€accident€with€Mr.€Salter.€€Ms.€Andrewsðð€car€wasÐ \¬ Ðhit€from€the€rear€in€that€accident,€but,€according€to€Ms.€Andrews,€sustained€no€damage,€and€noÐ H˜ Ðrepairs€had€been€done.Ð 4„ Ѐ€Ð  p Ðà  àPrior€to€trial,€Ms.€Andrews€filed€a€motion€òòin€limine€óóseeking€to€exclude€any€reference€to€herÐ  \ Ðinvolvement€in€any€previous€automobile€accidents.€€She€argued€that€because€there€was€no€proof€thatÐ øH Ðshe€had€sustained€any€injuries€from€two€prior€accidents,€the€introduction€of€such€evidence€wouldÐ ä4 Ðinvite€unfounded€speculation€on€the€part€of€the€jury.€€The€defense€argued€that€at€least€the€most€recent€Ð Ð  Ðprior€accident€was€relevant€to€the€property€damage€claim€and€also€argued€that€they€should€be€allowedÐ ¼  Ðto€introduce€those€portions€of€the€€testifying€doctorððs€deposition€regarding€her€knowledge,€or€lackÐ ¨ø Ðthereof,€of€the€prior€accidents€because€such€evidence€was€relevant€to€the€weight€of€the€doctorððsÐ ”ä Ðopinion€on€the€cause€of€the€injuries.€Ms.€Andrews€had€also€moved€to€exclude€that€testimony€fromÐ €Ð Ðher€neurologistððs€deposition.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€Ms.€Andrewsðð€motion€and€allowed€the€admission€of€evidence€of€theÐ D!” Ðprevious€accidents€for€the€limited€use€of€attacking€the€credibility€of€the€neurologistððs€opinion.€€€TheÐ 0"€  Ðcourt€prohibited€the€defense€from€arguing€or€speculating€to€the€jury€that€these€prior€accidents€wereÐ #l! Ðthe€actual€cause€of€Ms.€Andrewsðð€injuries,€but€allowed€the€defense€to€argue€that€an€issue€existed€ð ðasÐ $X" Ðto€the€causal€relationship€between€this€accident€and€these€injuries.ððÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àAt€trial,€€Ms.€Andrews€was€questioned€about€the€two€prior€accidents.€€She€testified€she€wasÐ Ì&"% Ðnot€injured€in€either€accident€and€had€not€sought€medical€attention€after€either€one.€Her€coworkerÐ ¸'#& Ðtestified€that€Ms.€Andrews€had€not€exhibited€any€injury€or€pain€until€after€the€accident€with€Mr.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐSalter.€€In€addition,€the€defense€was€allowed€to€enter€into€evidence€photographs€of€Ms.€AndrewsððÐ )à$( Ðvehicle€after€the€November€1994€accident,€which€photographs€reflected€damage€to€the€front€of€herÐ |*Ì%) Ðcar.€€That€damage€had€been€repaired,€for€about€$2000,€well€before€the€accident€caused€by€Mr.€Salter,Ð h+¸&* Ðand€Ms.€Andrews€testified€it€had€been€returned€to€its€condition€before€the€accident.€€The€secondÐ ° Ðaccident,€which€involved€another€car€hitting€the€rear€of€her€car,€occurred€in€June€of€1995.€€Ms.Ð œì ÐAndrews€testified€on€cross„examination€that€her€car€had€not€been€repaired€after€the€second€collision.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àMs.€Andrewsðð€expert,€Dr.€Clinton,€a€neurologist,€testified€that€her€tests€revealed€that€Ms.Ð `° ÐAndrews€had€suffered€a€ruptured€lumbar€disk,€which€was€putting€pressure€on€a€nerve,€and€she€wasÐ L œ Ðlikely€to€suffer€pain€in€the€future.Ô#†Xì(XXXì(ç#ÔÔ‡Xì(XXXì(Ô€€When€asked€to€give€an€opinion€as€to€any€causal€relationshipÐ 8 ˆ Ðbetween€Ms.€Andrewsðð€medical€problems€and€the€accident€involving€Mr.€Salter,€the€doctor€testified,€Ð $ t Ðð ðIn€my€opinion,€the€pain€and€the€ruptured€disk€were€caused€by€the€auto€accident.ððÐ  ` ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Clinton€testified€that€her€records€did€not€include€any€reference€toÐ è 8  Ðprior€automobile€accidents.€€She€also€had€no€independent€recollection€of€whether€Ms.€Andrews€hadÐ Ô$  Ðtold€her€about€the€previous€accidents€or€not.€€€Dr.€Clinton€explained€that€this€absence€could€be€dueÐ À  Ðto€the€fact€that€she,€the€doctor,€did€not€find€them€significant,€because€she€only€includes€in€her€recordsÐ ¬ü  Ðwhat€she€considers€important.€She€further€testified€that€if€Ms.€Andrews€had€mentioned€the€otherÐ ˜è  Ðaccidents,€after€which€she€suffered€no€pain€or€other€consequence€and€sought€no€medical€treatment,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€doctor€would€have€considered€them€insignificant€and€unrelated€to€Ms.€Andrewsðð€presentÐ pÀ Ðcondition.€She€also€stated€that,€based€on€the€questions€normally€asked€in€taking€a€history,€she€wouldÐ \¬ Ðnot€expect€a€patient€to€bring€up€incidents€involving€no€pain€or€injury.€She€said€she€did€not€expect€aÐ H˜ Ðperson€to€bring€up€small€events€that€happen.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àWhen€asked€about€the€small€amount€of€damage€to€the€car€as€compared€to€Ms.€AndrewsððÐ  \ Ðinjuries,€Dr.€Clinton€stated€that€just€because€the€impact€was€not€significant€to€the€car€does€notÐ øH Ðnecessarily€mean€it€was€not€significant€enough€to€cause€the€back€injury.€€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€defense€offered€no€evidence€to€the€contrary.€€Mr.€Salter€presented€no€evidence€that€Ms.Ð ¼  ÐAndrews€was€injured€in€the€prior€accidents€or€in€any€other€way.€He€presented€no€evidenceÐ ¨ø Ðestablishing€a€connection€between€the€prior€accidents€and€Ms.€Andrewsðð€ruptured€disk€and€relatedÐ ”ä Ðpain€and€problems.€€He€offered€nothing€to€rebut€the€doctorððs€statement€that€the€insignificance€ofÐ €Ð Ðdamage€to€the€car€was€not€indicative€of€the€significance€of€the€physical€injury€which€could€have€beenÐ l¼ Ðcaused€by€the€accident.€€Nor€did€the€defense€challenge€the€reasonableness€or€necessity€of€Ms.Ð X ¨ ÐAndrewsðð€medical€expenses.Ð D!” ÐÌà  àAlthough€the€trial€court€had€ordered€that€Mr.€Salter€was€not€permitted€to€argue€or€speculateÐ #l! Ðto€the€jury€that€the€prior€accidents€€actually€caused€Ms.€Andrewsðð€injury,€his€counsel€skillfullyÐ $X" Ðplanted€that€speculation€through€questioning€and€certainly€through€the€photograph€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðconsiderable€damage€to€the€front€end€of€Ms.€Andrewsðð€car€sustained€in€the€accident€ten€monthsÐ à%0!$ Ðearlier.€€In€his€closing€argument,€counsel€argued€that€€the€ð ðbumpðð€which€resulted€in€no€visibleÐ Ì&"% Ðdamage€to€her€car€could€not€have€caused€the€$11,000€in€damages€claimed.€He€then€argued€that€theÐ ¸'#& Ðneurologistððs€opinion€was€based€solely€on€what€Ms.€Andrews€had€told€her€and€that€there€had€beenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðòòóóno€mention€of€a€ð ðhead„on€collision.ðð€He€also€stated€that€ð ðthose€might€or€might€not€have€beenÐ ° Ðsignificant.ðð€€€Thus,€the€issue€of€whether€the€prior€automobile€accidents€had€caused€all€or€some€ofÐ œì ÐMs.€Andrewsðð€injuries€was€raised,€and€the€jury€was€invited€to€speculate.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àAlthough€€juries€may€properly€draw€inferences€from€the€evidence€before€them,€whether€directÐ `° Ðor€circumstantial,€it€is€well€settled€in€Tennessee€that€ð ð[a]n€inference€can€be€drawn€only€from€the€factsÐ L œ Ðin€evidence,€and€cannot€be€based€on€surmise,€speculation,€conjecture,€or€guess.ðð€òòBenton€v.€Snyderóó,Ð 8 ˆ Ð825€Ô#†Xì(XXXì( 4#ÔS.W.2dÔ‡Xì(XXXì(Ô€409,€414„415€(Tenn.€1992)€(quoting€32€C.J.S.€òòEvidenceóó€ðð€1044€(1942)).€€€ð ðAn€inferenceÐ $ t Ðis€reasonable€and€legitimate€only€when€the€evidence€makes€the€existence€of€the€fact€to€be€inferredÐ  ` Ðmore€probable€than€the€nonexistence€of€the€fact."€òòUnderwood€v.€HCA€Health€Services€of€Tenn.,€Inc.óó,Ð ü L  Ð892€S.W.2d€423,€426€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€Juries€are€not€permitted€to€engage€in€conjecture,Ð è 8  Ðspeculation,€or€guesswork€as€to€which€of€two€equally€probable€inferences€is€applicable.€òòSee€StringerÐ Ô$  Ðv.€Cooperóó,€486€S.W.2d€751,€756€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1972).€€Speculation€has€been€defined€as€ð ðthe€artÐ À  Ðof€theorizing€about€a€matter€as€to€which€evidence€is€not€sufficient€for€certain€knowledge.ðð€€òòBlackððsÐ ¬ü  ÐLaw€Dictionary€óó1255€(5òòthóó€ed.€1979).òòóóÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àThere€was€simply€no€evidence€presented€which€provided€any€basis€for€a€conclusion€that€Ms.Ð pÀ ÐAndrewsðð€injuries€were€caused,€even€in€part,€by€the€prior€automobile€accidents€or€by€any€otherÐ \¬ Ðmishap€Ms.€Andrews€may€have€suffered€in€the€past.€€Ms.€Andrews€presented€evidence€that€her€painÐ H˜ Ðand€physical€problems€were€caused€by€the€accident€that€was€caused€by€Mr.€Salterððs€negligence.€€SheÐ 4„ Ðpresented€evidence€of€the€causal€link€and€of€the€nature€and€extent€of€her€injuries.€€Whether€the€juryÐ  p Ðwould€have€disbelieved€the€extent€of€her€injuries€if€presented€only€with€the€argument€andÐ  \ Ðphotographs€regarding€the€slight€amount€of€damage€to€her€car€we€cannot€know.€€However,€the€juryÐ øH Ðwas€allowed€to€consider€evidence€which€was€irrelevant€and/or€was€prejudicial€beyond€its€relevance.€Ð ä4 Ðà  àÌà  àOnly€relevant€evidence€is€admissible.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€ð ðEvidence€is€relevant€if€itÐ ¼  Ðtends€to€prove€the€issue€or€constitutes€a€link€in€the€chain€of€proof.ðð€€òòPridemark€Custom€Plating,€Inc.Ð ¨ø Ðv.€Upjohn€Co.,€Inc.,€óó702€Ô#†Xì(XXXì(fD#ÔS.W.2dÔ‡Xì(XXXì(Ô€566,€572€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1985).€€Relevance€has€two€facets:Ð ”ä Ðmateriality€and€probative€value.€€òòSee€óóN.€Cohen,€D.€Paine,€and€S.€Sheppeard,€òòTennessee€Law€ofÐ €Ð ÐEvidenceóó€ðð€401.2€at€82„83€(3d€ed.€1995).€€€ð ðMateriality€limits€evidence€to€proof€of€issues€properlyÐ l¼ Ðprovable€in€the€case.ðð€€òòId.€€óóProbative€value€requires€that€evidence€ð ðassist€in€proving€what€it€is€offeredÐ X ¨ Ðto€prove.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ D!” ÐÌà  àEven€relevant€evidence€should€be€excluded€when€its€probative€value€"is€substantiallyÐ #l! Ðoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,€confusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury€.€.€.€."Ð $X" ÐTenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€In€the€explanatory€note€to€Rule€403,€ð ðunfair€prejudiceðð€is€defined€as€ð ð[Ô_Ôa]nÔ_Ô€undueÐ ô$D # Ðtendency€to€suggest€decision€on€an€improper€basis,€commonly,€though€not€necessarily,€an€emotionalÐ à%0!$ Ðone.ððÐ Ì&"% ÐÔ#†Xì(XXXì(+M#ÔÌà  àThe€photographs€of€damage€to€the€front€of€Ms.€Andrewððs€car€in€a€collision€occurring€tenÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmonths€before€the€accident€at€issue,€when€that€damage€had€been€repaired€and€when€Mr.€Salter€hadÐ )à$( Ðhit€the€rear€of€Ms.€Andrewsðð€car,€were€not€relevant€to€the€issues€in€this€case.€€Defense€counselððsÐ |*Ì%) Ðreference€to€the€failure€to€mention€a€ð ðhead„on€collisionðð€can€only€be€interpreted€as€a€reference€to€theÐ h+¸&* Ðearlier€collision.€€There€was€uncontroverted€evidence€that€Ms.€Andrews€suffered€no€injuries€in€theÐ ° Ðprior€accidents€and€had€not€displayed€any€pain€or€other€problems€after€those€accidents.€The€defenseÐ œì Ðprovided€absolutely€no€linkage€between€the€prior€accidents€and€Ms.€Andrewsðð€injuries.€€Absent€anyÐ ˆØ Ðsuch€linkage,€evidence€regarding€the€fact€that€she€had€experienced€prior€automobile€accidents€hadÐ tÄ Ðno€more€relevance€than€any€other€mishap€or€accident€she€may€have€experienced€without€injury.€€SheÐ `° Ðwas€not€required€to€disprove€any€other€possible€cause€of€her€injuries,€which€was€the€burden€placedÐ L œ Ðupon€her€by€the€evidence€of€only€the€occurrence€the€prior€accidents€and€the€speculation€encouragedÐ 8 ˆ Ðby€its€introduction.€€Without€a€greater€connection€between€the€accidents€and€her€injuries,€theÐ $ t Ðprejudice€created€by€the€evidence€of€the€prior€accidents€was€greater€than€any€probative€value€it€mayÐ  ` Ðhave€had.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àReviewing€all€the€evidence€and€the€juryððs€verdict,€we€cannot€uphold€the€judgment.€Ð Ô$  ÐÌÔ‡Xì(XXXì(Ôà8  àWhether€it€be€said€that€there€is€no€evidence€to€support€the€verdict,€or€that€the€juryÐ ¬ü  Ðoverlooked€or€ignored€uncontroverted€evidence,€or€that€the€jury€acted€upon€aÐ ˜è  Ðmisconception€of€the€evidence€or€the€law,€or€that€the€verdict€is€so€inconsistent€orÐ „Ô  Ðinadequate€or€both€as€to€indicate€the€various€forms€of€improper€consideration€by€theÐ pÀ Ðjury,€this€Court€is€satisfied€that€justice€was€not€done,€and€that€the€verdicts€are€notÐ \¬ Ðconsonant€with€the€facts€shown€by€the€uncontroverted€evidence€and€the€lawÐ H˜ Ðapplicable€thereto.€Ð4„Ð Ð  ÐÌòòLoftis€v.€Finchóó,€491€Ô#†Xì(XXXì(JX#ÔS.W.2dÔ‡Xì(XXXì(Ô€370,€377€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1973).€€Ð  \ ÐÔ#†Xì(XXXì(R[#ԀРøH Ðà  àMs.€Andrews€proved€by€her€own€testimony€and€by€that€of€her€coworker€and€her€doctor€thatÐ ä4 Ðshe€incurred€injuries€as€a€result€of€the€accident€caused€by€Mr.€Salter,€and€the€law€did€not€require€herÐ Ð  Ðto€disprove€every€other€potential€cause.€€The€defense€was€allowed€to€introduce€the€fact€of€two€priorÐ ¼  Ðaccidents€with€no€evidentiary€predicate€that€they€were€related€to€her€injuries.€€There€was€simply€noÐ ¨ø Ðevidentiary€basis€to€allow€the€jury€to€conclude€that€Ms.€Andrews€was€injured€in€the€prior€accidents.€Ð ”ä ÐWe€are€convinced€that€the€limited€and€incomplete€evidence€that€two€prior€accidents€occurred,Ð €Ð Ðwithout€any€basis€for€connecting€them€to€Ms.€Andrewsðð€injuries,€invited€the€jury€to€speculate€thatÐ l¼ Ðshe€had€been€injured€in€the€prior€accidents€when€there€was€no€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence€toÐ X ¨ Ðsupport€such€a€conclusion.Ð D!” ÐÔ‡Xì(XXXì(ÔÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€this€case€is€remanded€for€a€newÐ #l! Ðtrial€and€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€shall€be€taxed€toÐ $X" ÐAppellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð ô$D # ÐÔ#†Xì(XXXì(Ò_#ÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ¤(ô#' Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGE