ÿWPC8 …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0 l 0Dl 0J° 0Tú 0^N 0h¬ 0r 0|† 0† 0ˆ 1u U, ¹ w@¹ 0dù U,]U>‰U*ÇB)ñDC AM]U*ª BÔ&ñ› D3²zåŒ_ 0@ë+ŸDuã­X¢$G§&2î'H *±h-v~/vÓ—0 AOj6ƹ6 0D7 D/Ã7 Bò7˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡nnG 3|xú((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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`(Modern èEéê{ëì{íîIïðÓ€úP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial d Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌFebruary€14,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSome€courts€have€deemed€the€exclusion€of€the€sole€minority€member€of€the€venire€asÌà àsufficient€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case.€€We€need€not€reach€that€issue€on€these€facts.Ìà àòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ellisonóó,€841€S.W.2d€824,€827€(Tenn.€1992);€òòFaison€v.€Hudsonóó,€417€S.E.2dÌà à305,€308€(Va.€1992);€òòIn€re€of€A.D.E.óó,€880€S.W.2d€241,€249€(Tex.€App.€1994);€òòbutÌà àseeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Sangineto„Mirandaóó,€859€F.2d€1501,€1521€(6th€Cir.€1988).Ì'''''ÿÿdxd pÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIt€appears€from€the€record€that€the€judge€routinely€had€the€excused€jurors€remain€untilÌà àa€jury€was€seated€at€which€time€he€excused€them€all€with€instructions€about€future€€Ìà àservice.Ì ‚Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝDefendants'€challenge€slip€indicates€"Client€and€counsel€did€not€feel€juror€would€be€Ìà àimpartial.€€Same€'feeling'€rather€than€opinion€for€exclusion€of€juror€.€.€.€.€Body€languageÌà àand€gut€reaction."€€€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝNothing€in€òòEdmondsonóó€suggests€that€the€principles€are€to€be€shown€less€solicitude€inÌà àcivil€cases€than€in€criminal€ones.€€Particularly,€once€racial€discrimination€is€found,€it€mustÏà àbe€eradicated€regardless€of€the€nature€of€the€case€or€who€raises€the€issue.€€DiscriminationÏà àin€the€justice€system,€in€its€civil€or€criminal€components,€invites€disrespect€and€cannot€beÌà àtolerated.€€Treating€one€less€seriously€than€the€other€would€only€increase€the€disrespect.€Ïà àThe€litigant€and€the€juror€share€a€common€interest€in€eliminating€discrimination€from€theÏà àjudicial€system.€€òòOsmulski€v.€Beezeóó,€638€N.E.€2d€828€(Ind.€App.€1984);€òòMartins€v.Ïà àConnecticut€Light€and€Power,€Co.óó,€645€A.2d€557,€565€(Conn.€App.€1994).€€Judges€have€aÌà àcommon€obligation€to€assure€that€it€does€not€go€unanswered.Ì •Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€òòBatsonóó,€the€Court€stated€that€a€finding€of€purposeful€discrimination,€based€solelyÌà àon€the€facts€in€the€present€case,€would€require€proof€that€defendant€was€a€memberÌà àof€a€cognizable€racial€group,€and€second,€that€the€prosecutor€has€excluded€membersÌà àof€that€group€from€the€venire.€€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€at€96.€€ThoseÌà àrequirements,€though€present€in€the€case€before€us,€were€eliminated€in€òòPowersóó€andÌà àòòEdmondsonóó.€€Ì kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòFaison€v.€Hudsonóó,€417€S.E.2d€305,€308€(Va.€1992)("[i]mplicit€in€the€trial€court'sÌà àruling€.€.€.€was€a€finding€that€Faison€had€established€a€òòprimaóó€òòfacieóó€case").Ì £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€are€mindful€of€the€meager€standard€established€by€the€United€States€Supreme€CourtÌà àin€òòPurkett€v.€Elemóó,€_____€U.S.€_____,€115€S.Ct.€1769,€131€L.Ed.2d€834€(1995),€for€Ìà àracially€neutral€explanations.€€There€the€Court€held€that€the€explanation€need€not€be€Ìà àpersuasive€nor€plausible.€€So€long€as€discrimination€was€not€inherent€in€the€explanation,Ìà àthe€reason€will€be€accepted€as€race€neutral.€€Thus,€the€Court€explained€"[w]hat€is€meantÌà à[in€òòBatsonóó]€by€a€'legitimate€reason'€is€not€a€reason€that€makes€sense,€but€a€reason€that€doesÌà ànot€deny€equal€protection."€€òòPurkett€v.€Elemóó,€_____€U.S.€at€_____,€115€S.Ct.€at€_____,Ìà à131€L.Ed.2d€at€840€(citing€òòHernandez€v.€New€Yorkóó,€500€U.S.€352,€359€(1991)(pluralityÌà àopinion)).€€Given€the€trial€judge's€findings€here,€and€the€presumption€of€correctness€whichÌà àattaches€on€appeal,€we€do€not€determine€whether€the€proferred€explanation€in€this€caseÌà àwas€race€neutral.Ì ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€òòBatsonóó,€the€Court€recognized€reinstatement€as€one€curative€measure,€but€declined€toÌà àsay€whether€''it€is€more€appropriate€.€.€.€for€the€trial€court€to€discharge€the€venire€and€selectÌà àa€new€jury€from€a€panel€not€previously€associated€with€the€case,€or€to€disallow€the€Ìà àdiscriminatory€challenges€and€resume€selection€with€the€improperly€challenged€jurorsÌà àreinstated€on€the€venire."€€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€at€99€n.€249€(citations€omitted).Ì =Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòSeeóó€òòPurkett€v.€Elemóó,€_____€U.S.€_____,€115€S.Ct.€1769,€131€L.Ed.2d€834€(1995);Ìà àòòHernandez€v.€New€Yorkóó,€500€U.S.€352€(1991).Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝObviously€plaintiff€was€required€to€object€to€the€evidence€at€the€time€of€its€admission€inÌà àorder€to€preserve€its€introduction€as€error.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€103(a)(1);€òòseeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.Ìà àCokeróó,€746€S.W.2d€167€(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.€Bennettóó,€549€S.W.2d€949€(Tenn.€1977);Ìà àòòIn€re€Estate€of€Armstrongóó,€859€S.W.2d€323€(Tenn.€App.€1993).Ì >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAn€appropriate€instruction,€for€example,€would€read€as€follows:€€You€have€heardÏà àevidence€regarding€prior€accidents€involving€Mr.€Morris€while€employed€by€Porter€Brown.€Ïà àYou€may€consider€that€evidence€only€as€it€relates€to€plaintiff's€claim€that€Porter€BrownÏà àentrusted€Mr.€Morris€to€drive€their€truck€even€though€they€knew€he€was€an€incompetentÏà àdriver.€€In€other€words,€you€may€consider€that€evidence€only€on€the€negligent€entrustmentÏà àclaim€against€Porter€Brown.€€Do€not€consider€it€for€any€purpose€whatsoever€in€yourÏà àevaluation€of€whether€Mr.€Morris'€negligence€was€the€proximate€cause€of€this€accident.Ì §Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOn€retrial,€should€some€legitimate€other€purpose€for€the€admission€of€this€evidence€arise,Ìà àthe€court€should,€nonetheless,€upon€request,€conduct€a€404(b)€hearing€before€itsÏà àà àadmission,€and€consider€giving€a€limiting€instruction.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T 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  ÝÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€æ9XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€!¼ÔØ ØÓ&€""X°d&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌBENNIE€WOODSON,€asà àà à)à àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONó óÌóóAdministrator€of€the€Estate€of€òòà àà àóó)òòÌóóElizabeth€W.€Terrell,€Deceased,à à)à àòòò òFiled:€February€14,€1996ó óóóÌand€as€Administrator€of€the€Estate€of€à à)ÌJohn€Thomas€Woodson,€Deceased,à à)à àCheatham€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)à àHon.€Robert€E.€Burch,€JudgeÌv.€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà à€€€€€€à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01S01„9402„CV„00149ÌÙ€€ÙßL€%($;+'h|ÿ"` ç `€€LßPORTER€BROWN€LIMESTONEà à)à àÌCOMPANY,€INC.€and€FELIXà àà à)ÌEWING€MORRIS,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:à àà àà àòòFor€Defendants/Appelleesóó:ÌÌAnn€Buntin€Steinerà àà àà àRobert€E.€HoehnÌFrank€Steinerà àà àà àà àJohn€B.€CarlsonÌSTEINER€&€STEINERà àà àà àWATKINS,€McGUGIN,ÌNashville,€TNà àà àà àà àMcNEILLY€&€ROWANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òO€€P€€I€€N€€I€€O€€NÌÌÌÌÌÌó óCOURT€OF€APPEALS€AND€TRIAL€COURT€à àà àWHITE,€J.ÌREVERSED;€REMANDED€TO€TRIAL€COURTÌFOR€NEW€TRIALÌÓÓà àIn€this€appeal€from€the€Cheatham€County€Circuit€Court,€we€areÏconfronted€by€a€unique€aberration€of€the€rules€of€law€announced€by€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€€òòPowers€v.€Ohioóó,€andÏòòEdmondson€v.€Leesville€Concrete€Company,€Inc.óó.€€In€that€series€of€cases,Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€recognized€first,€€that€the€criminalÏdefendant's€rights€are€violated€when€race„based€challenges€exclude€a€jurorÏfrom€service,€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€€475€U.S.€79€(1985);€€second,€that€theÏexclusion€likewise€violates€a€juror's€rights,€òòPowers€v.€Ohioóó,€499€U.S.€400Ï(1991);€and€third,€that€the€juror's€and€litigant's€rights€are€viable€in€civil,Ïas€well€as€criminal,€cases.€€òòEdmondson€v.€Leesville€Concrete€€Company,ÏInc.óó,€€500€U.S.€614€(1991).€€In€the€case€before€the€Court€we€mustÏconsider€the€impact€of€these€rules€in€a€civil€case€in€which€the€excludedÏminority€juror€declines€to€serve.ÌÌà àThe€parties€view€the€issue€before€us€differently.€€Plaintiff€states€theÏconstitutional€issue€before€the€Court€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àDoes€a€black€litigant€in€a€civil€action€haveÏstanding€to€contest€a€jury€tainted€by€a€raciallyÏbased€peremptory€challenge€of€the€sole€blackÏmember€of€the€jury€panel?ÌÌÓÓDefendants,€conversely,€phrase€the€issue€as€whether€the€trial€courtÏproperly€determined€that€the€juror€waived€his€right€by€knowingly€andÏvoluntarily€refusing€to€sit€on€the€jury.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below,Ïwe€reverse€the€Court€of€Appeals'€decision€in€this€matter€and€remand€theÏcase€for€a€new€trial.ÌÇà@ àI.€€FactsÌà àIn€this€wrongful€death€action,€plaintiff's€decedents€were€killed€whenÏtheir€car€was€struck€by€a€gravel€truck€driven€by€defendant€Felix€Morris,Ïan€employee€of€defendant€Porter€Brown€Limestone€Company,€Inc,.€ÏPlaintiff's€theory€of€the€case€was€that€defendant€Morris€had€failed€to€seeÏthe€automobile€driven€by€plaintiff's€decedent€and€had€collided€into€theÏrear€of€the€car€killing€the€two€occupants.€€Plaintiff€also€theorized€thatÏdefendant€Porter€Brown€was€liable€because€of€its€negligent€entrustment€ofÏthe€vehicle€to€defendant€Morris€knowing€of€his€prior€accident€history€andÏhis€failure€to€wear€corrective€lenses€which€plaintiff€claimed€had€beenÏprescribed.€€Defendants'€theory€of€the€case€was€that€plaintiff's€decedent,ÏElizabeth€Terrell,€who€had€stopped€on€the€side€of€the€road,€pulled€herÏvehicle€into€the€path€of€Morris'€truck€and€that€he€could€not€avoid€hittingÏher.€€Though€expert€and€eyewitness€testimony€supported€both€versions,Ïthe€jury€determined€that€plaintiff's€decedent€was€one€hundred€percentÏresponsible€for€the€accident€and,€accordingly,€rendered€judgment€forÏdefendants.Ìà àÌà àDuring€the€jury€selection,€defendants€exercised€a€peremptoryÍchallenge€to€exclude€the€sole€black€juror€from€the€venire.× ƒ) ××  ×€€The€courtÏexcused€the€juror,€and€the€others€challenged€peremptorily,€but€asked€thatÏthey€remain€temporarily€in€the€courtroom.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Plaintiff's€counsel€requestedÏpermission€to€approach€the€bench€and,€in€the€bench€conference€thatÏfollowed,€objected€to€the€challenge€of€the€black€juror.€€Upon€hearing€theÏobjection,€the€court€required€each€counsel€to€"detail€the€reasons€for€[the]Ïchallenges."€€After€the€written€reasons€were€passed€to€the€court,× ƒ, ××  ×€theÏcourt,€in€the€following€manner,€called€the€excluded€juror€to€the€bench€andÏinformed€the€juror€that€he€had€a€right€to€serve€on€the€jury:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWith€the€law€changing€daily,€it's€my€opinion€thatÏall€that€„„€in€any€situation€where€a€member€ofÏthe€jury€is€excused,€that€is€the€juror's€right€as€aÏmember€of€the€fair€community,€that€he€canÏcontinue€to€sit€on€the€jury,€but€it€is€your€right.ÌÌÓÓThe€juror€responded:€€"I'd€rather€not€exercise€that€right."€€The€courtÏthanked€and€excused€the€juror€without€further€comment€on€the€record.ÌÌà àAn€all„white€jury€was€seated.€€During€the€plaintiff's€case€in€chief,Ïplaintiff€offered€evidence€of€defendant€Morris'€driving€record€to€establishÏthat€defendant€Porter€Brown€had€negligently€entrusted€the€responsibilityÏof€operating€the€truck€to€defendant€Morris.€€Plaintiff€proffered€that€sinceÏ1981,€defendant€Morris€had€been€involved€in€nine€accidents,€at€least€twoÏof€which€involved€rear„end€collisions.€€€The€court€disallowed€theÏevidence,€finding€that€its€admission€would€be€more€prejudicial€thanÏprobative.€€After€defendants€offered€evidence€that€Morris€wasÏconscientious€about€his€truck's€condition€and€that€he€and€other€driversÏwere€routinely€advised€to€be€careful,€plaintiff€again€attempted€toÏintroduce€the€evidence€of€the€prior€accidents.€€The€court€disallowed€theÏintroduction€in€rebuttal€as€well.€€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€plaintiff€attacks€the€exclusion€of€the€juror€and€theÏevidence€and€alleges€that€both€entitle€plaintiff€to€a€new€trial.€€Plaintiff€alsoÏcontends€that€the€venue€of€the€new€trial€should€be€transferred.€€The€CourtÏof€Appeals€disagreed€with€plaintiff€on€each€issue€and€affirmed€the€trialÏcourt's€judgment€for€defendants.ÌÌà àOn€the€first€issue,€the€intermediate€court€enumerated€the€threeÍinterests€implicated€in€the€Supreme€Court€cases:€€the€juror's€equalÏprotection€rights;€the€litigant's€equal€protection€rights;€and€the€judicialÏsystem's€interest€in€maintaining€public€confidence.€€In€affirming,€theÏappellate€court€held€that:ÌÓÓà àà à1.à8 àthe€trial€court€protected€the€juror'sÏright€by€offering€him€the€right€toÏserve;ÌÌà àà à2.à8 àa€civil€litigant's€right€to€a€juryÏchosen€in€a€non„discriminatoryÏmanner€is€less€compelling€than€aÏcriminal€defendant's€whose€libertyÏinterests€are€implicated;× ƒ. ××  ×Ìà àÌà àà à3.à8 àthe€judicial€process€was€not€affectedÏsince€the€judge€offered€the€juror€theÏopportunity€to€serve.ÌÌÓÓFinally,€the€court€held€that€the€trial€judge€had€not€abused€his€discretion€inÏoffering€the€juror€the€choice€of€serving€or€not€serving€on€the€jury.€€OnÏthe€evidentiary€issue,€the€court€likewise€affirmed€the€trial€judge.ÌÌà àWe€have€granted€review€to€consider€this€important€constitutionalÍissue€and€to€discuss€the€appropriate€procedures€for€trial€judges€faced€withÏjuror€challenges€which€may€run€afoul€of€the€constitution.€€While€we€agreeÏwith€the€Court€of€Appeals'€€enumeration€of€the€three€competing€interestsÏinvolved€in€these€cases,€we€disagree€with€their€conclusions.€€First,€we€noteÏthat€in€Tennessee,€jury€service€is€a€legal€responsibility€as€well€as€a€right.€ÏSecondly,€we€disagree€that€the€constitutional€principle€of€equal€protectionÏis€subject€to€stricter€standards€in€criminal€cases.€€Finally,€we€disagree€thatÏthe€judicial€process€was€not€affected€by€the€court's€"offer"€to€allow€theÏjuror€to€serve€in€this€case.€€For€those€reasons€and€the€others€set€forth,€weÏreverse€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.€€As€a€result€of€the€remand€of€this€caseÏfor€a€new€trial,€we€will€address€the€evidentiary€issues€as€well.ÌÌà@ àII.€€IssuesÌà@ àA.€€Excluded€Juror€Ì€à àSince€as€early€as€1880,€it€has€consistently€been€recognized€thatÏracially„based€juror€exclusions€affect€and€injure€the€integrity€of€the€justiceÏsystem.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòStrauder€v.€West€Virginiaóó,€100€U.S.€303€(1880);€òòNorrisÏv.€Alabamaóó,€294€U.S.€587€(1935);€òòHollins€v.€Oklahomaóó,€295€U.S.€394Ï(1935)(per€curiam);€òòBallard€v.€United€Statesóó,€329€U.S.€187€(1946);€òòCarterÏv.€Jury€Comm'n€of€Greene€Countyóó,€396€U.S.€320€(1970).€€For€over€oneÏhundred€years,€discrimination€in€the€jury€selection€process€has€constitutedÍa€federal€criminal€offense.€€18€U.S.C.€ðð243€(1969).€€More€recently,€in€aÏseries€of€cases,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€that€theÏinjury€inherent€in€discriminatory€juror€selection€taints€the€judicial€processÏand€"extends€beyond€that€inflicted€on€the€[litigant]€and€the€excluded€jurorÏto€touch€the€entire€community."€€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79,€87Ï(1986).€€The€exclusion€"undermine[s]€public€confidence€in€the€fairness€ofÏour€system€of€justice."€€òòIdóó.€at€87.ÌÌà àThus,€in€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€the€Court€held€that€a€criminalÏdefendant€could€challenge€the€exclusion€of€racial€minorities€on€equalÏprotection€grounds.€€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€79€(1986).€€There€aÏblack€criminal€defendant€challenged€the€prosecution's€use€of€peremptoryÏchallenges€to€exclude€all€the€black€members€of€the€venire.€€The€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€equal€protection€clause€guaranteesÏdefendant€that€the€State€will€not€exclude€members€of€defendant's€raceÏfrom€the€venire€on€account€of€race.€€òòIdóó.€at€97„98.ÌÌà àThe€òòBatsonóó€Court€outlined€the€appropriate€procedure€for€raisingÏthe€equal€protection€challenge.€€First,€defendant€must€establish€a€primaÏfacie€case€of€purposeful€discrimination.€€Defendant€"may€make€out€aÏprima€facie€case€by€showing€that€the€totality€of€the€relevant€facts€givesÍrise€to€an€inference€of€discriminatory€purpose."€€òòIdóó.€at€94.€€This€showingÏmay€include€proof€of€systematic€exclusion,€substantialÏunderrepresentation€on€the€venire,€or€the€selection€methods€and€resultsÏsolely€in€the€present€case.€€òòIdóó.€at€95.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€€As€to€the€purposeful€requirement,Ïdefendant€is€entitled€to€rely€on€the€nature€of€the€peremptory€challenge€„Ïthat€it€permits€"'those€to€discriminate€who€are€of€a€mind€to€discriminate.'"€ÏòòIdóó.€at€96€(quoting€òòAvery€v.€Georgiaóó,€345€U.S.€559,€562€(1953)).€€In€theÏend,€defendant€must€establish€that€a€consideration€of€all€the€relevantÏcircumstances€raises€an€inference€of€purposeful€discrimination.€€òòIdóó.€at€97.ÌÌà àOnce€defendant€makes€a€prima€facie€showing,€the€state€is€requiredÏto€demonstrate€a€neutral€explanation€for€the€exclusion.€€òòIdóó.€€TheÏexplanation€need€not€reach€the€level€of€a€"for€cause"€challenge,€butÏneither€may€it€be€so€scant€as€to€rely€on€assumed€bias€on€the€part€of€theÏexcluded€juror€because€of€race€or€to€conclusively€assert€universal€goodÏfaith€on€the€part€of€the€prosecutor.€€òòIdóó.€at€97„98.€€If€a€race„neutralÏexplanation€is€given,€the€trial€court€must€determine€whether,€given€all€theÍcircumstances,€defendant€has€established€purposeful€discrimination.€€If€so,Ïthe€juror€may€not€be€excluded.€€After€reviewing€these€standards,€theÏòòBatsonóó€Court€remanded€the€case€to€allow€the€trial€court€to€evaluate€theÏfacts.Ì€€Ìà àWhile€the€holding€in€òòBatsonóó€focused€on€defendant's€rights,€it€alsoÏreferenced€the€negative€effects€that€race„based€exclusions€have€on€theÏexcluded€juror€and€the€community.€€òòIdóó.€at€87„89.€€Five€years€later,€inÏòòPowers€v.€Ohioóó,€499€U.S.€400€(1991),€the€Court€expanded€òòBatsonóó€in€aÏcase€that€emphasized€the€importance€of€the€excluded€juror's€rights.€€InÏòòPowersóó,€a€white€defendant€was€deemed€to€have€third€party€standing€toÏchallenge€the€exclusion€of€a€black€juror.€€"[T]he€Equal€Protection€ClauseÏprohibits€a€prosecutor€from€using€the€State's€peremptory€challenges€toÏexclude€otherwise€qualified€and€unbiased€persons€from€the€petit€juryÏsolely€by€reason€of€their€race,€a€practice€that€forecloses€a€significantÏopportunity€to€participate€in€civil€life.€€An€individual€juror€does€not€haveÏa€right€to€sit€on€any€particular€petit€jury,€but€he€or€she€does€possess€theÏright€not€to€be€excluded€from€one€on€account€of€race."€€òòPowers€v.€Ohioóó,Ï499€U.S.€at€409.€€Further,€"race€is€irrelevant€to€the€defendant's€standingÏto€object€to€the€discriminatory€use€of€peremptory€challenges."€€òòIdóó.€at€416.ÌÌà àThe€same€year,€the€Court€applied€the€òòBatsonòòóó€óórationale€to€civil€casesÏholding€that€"[r]acial€discrimination€has€no€place€in€the€courtroom,Ïwhether€the€proceeding€is€civil€or€criminal."€€òòEdmondson€v.€LeesvilleÏConcrete€Co.,€Incóó,€€500€U.S.€614,€630€(1991).€€Since€"[t]he€selection€ofÏjurors€represents€a€unique€function€delegated€to€private€litigants€by€theÏgovernment€and€attributable€to€the€government€for€purposes€of€invokingÏconstitutional€protections€.€.€.€,"€òòidóó.€at€627,€the€Court€found€state€action€inÏthe€civil€action€forum.€€Therefore,€a€private€litigant's€use€of€peremptoryÏchallenges€in€a€civil€case€constitutes€state€action;€it€is€unconstitutional€toÏuse€peremptory€challenges€to€exclude€jurors€because€of€race.ÌÌà àAdditionally€in€òòEdmondsonóó€the€Court€reiterated€its€concern€for€theÏsystem€itself:Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓRace€discrimination€within€the€courtroom€raisesÏserious€questions€as€to€the€fairness€of€theÏproceedings€conducted€there.€€Racial€bias€marsÏthe€integrity€of€the€judicial€system€and€preventsÏthe€idea€of€democratic€government€fromÏbecoming€a€reality.€.€.€.€To€permit€racialÏexclusion€in€this€official€forum€compounds€theÏracial€insult€inherent€in€judging€a€citizen€by€theÏcolor€of€his€or€her€skin.ÌÌòòIdóó.€at€628€(citations€omitted).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAs€a€result€of€the€principles€announced€in€this€triage€of€cases,€weÍknow€that€jurors,€as€well€as€civil€and€criminal€litigants,€regardless€of€theirÏrace,€have€standing€to€contest€racially„based€peremptory€challenges.€€WeÏknow€that€the€party€raising€the€issue€must€establish€a€prima€facie€case€ofÏpurposeful€discrimination€and€that,€upon€such€a€showing,€the€burdenÏshifts€to€allow€the€opposing€party€an€opportunity€to€offer€a€neutralÏexplanation€for€the€exclusion.€€Finally,€we€know€that€among€the€interestsÏwhich€the€cases€aim€to€protect€is€the€integrity€and€respect€for€the€justiceÏsystem.ÌÌà àWhile€speaking€profoundly€about€the€import€of€the€constitutionalÏprinciples€in€these€cases,€the€Supreme€Court€declined€to€offer€practicalÏguidance€to€judges€and€lawyers€who€must€apply€the€abstract€principles€toÏthe€practical€reality€of€the€courtroom.€€The€Court€concluded,€forÏexample,€that€€€"[i]t€remains€for€the€trial€courts€to€develop€rules,€withoutÏunnecessary€disruption€of€the€jury€selection€process,€to€permit€legitimateÏand€well„founded€objections€to€the€use€of€peremptory€challenges€as€aÏmask€for€race€prejudice."€€òòPowers€v.€Ohioóó,€499€U.S.€at€416;€òòEdmondsonÏv.€Leesville€Concrete€Co.,€Inc.óó,€500€U.S.€at€631€("we€leave€it€to€the€trialÏcourts€in€the€first€instance€to€develop€evidentiary€rules€for€implementingÏour€decision");€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€at€99€n.€24.ÌÌà àPerhaps€that€absence€of€practical€guidance€from€the€high€CourtÏcombined€with€the€relative€newness€of€òòBatsonóó€challenges€in€civil€cases€andÏthe€numerous€unresolved€procedural€issues€produced€the€unusual€postureÏof€this€case.€€By€virtue€of€the€procedure€used,€the€trial€judge€announcedÏthat€the€juror€was€excluded€before€counsel€had€an€opportunity€to€object.€ÏAfter€counsel€objected,€the€court€required€counsel€to€write€down€theÏreasons€for€exclusion.€€Then,€upon€reflection,€the€court€invited€the€jurorÏto€"unexcuse"€himself.€€He,€quite€understandably,€declined.ÌÌà àUnder€òòBatsonóó,€in€addition€to€objecting€to€the€peremptory€challenge,Ïcounsel€must€make€a€prima€facie€showing€of€purposeful€discrimination.€ÏAs€guidance€on€this€issue,€the€Supreme€Court€stated€that€all€relevantÏcircumstances€should€be€considered,€including€any€pattern€of€strikes,Ïquestions€and€statements€during€voir€dire,€and€the€recognized€inferenceÏthat€peremptory€challenges€create€an€atmosphere€which€allowsÏdiscrimination.€€€òòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€at€96„98.€€In€òòEdmondsonóó,Ïthe€Court€reiterated€that€this€same€approach€applied€in€the€civil€context.ÏòòEdmondson€v.€Leesville€Concrete€Company,€Inc.óó,€€500€U.S.€at€631.€ÏFollowing€the€showing,€the€burden€shifts€to€allow€counsel€to€explain€theÏlegitimate€reason€for€the€challenge.€€Then,€objecting€counsel€must€beÏgiven€an€opportunity€to€show€that€the€reason€given€is€pretextual€orÍinadequate.€€Thereafter,€the€court€must€evaluate€all€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€to€determine€whether€racial€exclusion€has€beenÏdemonstrated.€€€€ÌÌà àThe€crux€of€the€Supreme€Court's€totality€approach€is€the€Court'sÏreliance€on€and€confidence€in€the€trial€court€to€make€these€fact„basedÏdeterminations:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWe€have€confidence€that€trial€judges,Ïexperienced€in€supervising€voir€dire,€will€beÏable€to€decide€if€the€circumstances€.€.€.€create[€]€aÏprima€facie€case€of€discrimination€against€blackÏjurors.ÌÌÓÓòòBatson€v.€Kentuckyóó,€476€U.S.€at€97.€€Given€the€variety€of€jury€selectionÏmethods,€the€Court€made€"no€attempt€to€instruct€[trial]€courts€how€toÏimplement€[the]€holding€.€.€.€."€€òòIdóó.€at€99€n.€24.€€ÌÌà àThus,€it€remains€for€the€trial€judge€to€devise€a€method€toÏaccomplish€the€mandates€of€the€cases.€€In€our€supervisory€role€over€ourÏstate€trial€courts,€we€are€obliged€to€assist€our€trial€judges€in€devising€voirÏdire€methods€which€allow€counsel€to€object€to€potential€peremptoryÏchallenges€before€the€court€announces€the€exclusion€of€the€juror.€€Once€anÏobjection€is€voiced,€the€court€should€require€the€objecting€party€to€detailÏhow€a€prima€facie€case€of€purposeful€discrimination€has€been€established.€ÍThe€judge€should€state€clearly€on€the€record,€outside€the€jury's€presence,Ïthe€facts€relied€upon€for€finding€the€presence€or€absence€of€a€prima€facieÏshowing.€€If,€and€only€if,€the€judge€finds€that€a€prima€facie€showing€hasÏbeen€made,€then€the€party€seeking€to€exclude€the€juror€must€be€given€anÏopportunity€to€offer€neutral,€nondiscriminatory€explanations€for€theÏexercise€of€the€challenge.€€Thereafter,€€the€judge€must€determine,€basedÏon€all€the€evidence,€whether€purposeful€discrimination€has€beenÏestablished.€€ÌÌà àHere,€there€is€no€record€of€previous€systematic€exclusions,€orÏunderrepresentations,€in€the€venire.€€Defendants€excused€the€sole€blackÏmember€of€the€venire.€€The€voir€dire€of€the€excused€juror€is€notÏrevealing,€but€is€somewhat€cryptic.€€While€the€procedure€used€by€the€trialÏjudge€created€difficulties,€€we€must€conclude€that€the€trial€judgeÏdetermined€that€a€prima€facie€case€of€purposeful€discrimination€had€beenÏestablished.€€Otherwise,€the€court€would€not€have€required€defendants€toÏexplain€the€challenge.× ƒ0 ××  ×ÌÌà àAdditionally,€and€again€in€the€face€of€a€somewhat€skewedÍprocedure,€we€must€conclude€that€the€trial€judge€rejected€defendants'Ïexplanation× ƒ1 ××  ×€and€concluded€that€plaintiff€had€established€purposefulÏdiscrimination€based€on€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€Otherwise,€theÏjudge€would€not€have€been€authorized€to€disallow€the€exercise€of€theÏchallenge€and€invite€the€juror€to€return€to€the€panel.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€22„3„105(a)(1994€Repl.)(right€to€four€peremptory€challenges€inÏcivil€cases).€€Thus,€implicit€in€the€judge's€actions€and€his€order€is€theÏfinding€that€defendants'€exercise€of€the€peremptory€challenge€to€excludeÏthe€minority€juror€violated€the€equal€protection€clause.€€ÌÌà àHaving€concluded€that€the€trial€judge€found€purposefulÏdiscrimination,€we€must€determine€whether€the€trial€judge€erred€inÏoffering€the€juror€the€choice€of€serving€or€not€serving€on€the€jury.€€WeÏconclude€that€offering€the€juror€the€choice€of€serving€was€error.€€InÏTennessee,€all€adult€citizens€not€excluded€by€law€are€required€to€serve€onÍa€jury€if€summonsed€and€selected.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„1„101€(1994ÏRepl.).€€To€allow€a€juror€to€decide€whether€he€or€she€complies€with€theÏstatutory€requirement€would€potentially€destroy€the€jury€system.€€JurorsÏsummonsed€for€duty€or€called€to€the€box€could€simply€decline€to€serve.€ÌÌà àAdditionally,€allowing€the€juror€to€choose€to€opt€out€of€serviceÏwould€elevate€the€juror's€interest€„€a€viable,€but€not€exclusive€interest€„Ïabove€the€interests€of€the€litigants,€the€community,€and€the€preservation€ofÏthe€integrity€of€the€system.€€Albeit€with€varying€degrees€of€emphasis,€theÏSupreme€Court€repeatedly€echoed€the€trilogy€of€rights€it€sought€toÏprotect.€€While€the€litigant's€rights€were€important,€they€were€notÏsuperior€to€the€jurors.€€Neither€were€the€juror's€rights€more€importantÏthan€the€litigants.€€The€integrity€of€the€system,€the€sanctity€of€jury€service,Ïthe€perception€of€the€community€were€interests€equally€important€to€thoseÏof€the€litigant€and€the€juror.€€Guided€by€the€Court's€decisions,€we,Ïtherefore,€conclude€that€the€juror's€rights€cannot€subvert€the€equallyÏsignificant€rights€of€the€litigant€and€the€aura€of€the€system.€€Therefore,€ifÏa€court€finds€that€a€party€has€engaged€in€purposeful€racial€discriminationÏin€the€exercise€of€a€peremptory€challenge,€the€juror€cannot€negate€theÏconstitutional€injury€by€agreeing€not€to€serve€under€circumstances€inÏwhich€a€juror€is€not€otherwise€entitled€to€decline€to€serve.ÌÌà àThe€challenged€juror€in€Tennessee€cannot€excuse€her€or€himself.€€IfÏno€statutory€exemption€applies,€a€juror€is€competent€and€must€serve€unlessÏchallenged€peremptorily€or€for€cause.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€22„1„102€ð!ð€„106€(1994€Repl.).€€A€racially€discriminatory€peremptory€challenge€is€aÏnullity.€€Once€the€court€concluded€that€defendants'€challenge€was€raciallyÏdiscriminatory,€the€trial€judge€was€required€to€return€the€challenged€jurorÏto€the€panel€or€invoke€some€other€remedial€method.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€juror€had€noÏright€to€decline€to€serve.€€The€judge€had€no€right€to€honor€thatÏdeclination.ÌÌà àOnce€discrimination€in€jury€selection€has€occurred,€the€harm€isÏdone.€€The€system,€the€litigant,€and€the€juror€have€already€sustainedÏinjury.ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€litigants€are€harmed€by€the€risk€that€theÏprejudice€which€motivated€the€discriminatoryÏselection€of€the€jury€will€infect€the€entireÏprocess.€€The€community€is€harmed€by€theÏstate's€participation€in€the€perpetuation€ofÏinvidious€group€stereotypes€and€the€inevitableÏloss€of€confidence€in€our€justice€system€thatÍstate„sanctioned€discrimination€in€the€courtroomÏengenders.ÌÌÓÓòòJ.E.B.€v.€Alabama€ex€rel.€T.B.óó,€114€S.Ct€1419,€1427€(1994).€€OfferingÏthe€right€to€serve€does€not€remove€the€taint;€enforcing€the€right€does.ÌÌà àIn€future€cases,€judges€must€utilize€procedures€to€assure€that€theÏprocess€is€carefully€followed.€€First,€the€court€must€provide€anÏopportunity€to€counsel€to€object€to€potential€peremptory€challenges€beforeÏthe€court€announces€the€exclusion€and€excuse€of€challenged€jurors.€€ThisÏprocedure€may€be€outlined€before€trial,€detailed€in€the€pretrial€order,€orÏdescribed€in€the€court's€local€rules.€€For€example,€counsel€could€beÏrequired€to€submit€challenges€in€writing€to€opposing€counsel€beforeÏpresenting€them€to€the€clerk€or€judge.€€Prior€to€reading€the€names€of€theÏexcluded€jurors,€the€judge€might€inquire€as€to€objections€or€might€simplyÏpause€to€allow€objections.€€Counsel€desiring€to€contest€a€challenge€onÏdiscrimination€grounds€could€do€so€at€the€bench€or€in€a€jury„outÏconference.€€€€ÌÌà àSecondly,€after€the€objection€is€raised,€the€court€must€ascertainÏwhether€a€prima€facie€case€of€purposeful€discrimination€has€beenÏestablished.€€This€proffer€or€discussion€should€also€occur€outside€theÍpresence€of€the€jury.€€If€the€court€finds€that€a€prima€facie€case€has€beenÏestablished,€€the€court€must€give€the€opposing€party€the€opportunity€toÏrebut€the€prima€facie€case€by€establishing€a€neutral€reason€for€the€exerciseÏof€the€challenge.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€The€objecting€party€must€be€allowed€to€respond€as€toÏwhy€the€reason€is€pretextual€or€inadequate.€€Thereafter,€the€court€mustÏdetermine,€by€considering€all€the€facts€and€circumstances,€whether€theÏtotality€of€the€circumstances€support€a€finding€of€purposefulÏdiscrimination.€€"The€.€.€.€ultimate€burden€of€persuasion€rests€with,€andÏnever€shifts€from,€the€opponent€of€the€strike."€€òòPurkett€v.€Elemóó,€_____ÏU.S.€at€_____,€115€S.Ct.€at€_____,€131€L.Ed.2d€at€839.ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge€must€carefully€articulate€specific€reasons€for€eachÏfinding€on€the€record,€i.e.,€whether€a€prima€facie€case€has€beenÏestablished;€whether€a€neutral€explanation€has€been€given;€and€whether€theÏtotality€of€the€circumstances€support€a€finding€of€purposefulÏdiscrimination.€€The€trial€court's€factual€findings€are€imperative€in€thisÏcontext.€€On€appeal,€the€trial€court's€findings€are€to€be€accorded€greatÏdeference€and€not€set€aside€unless€clearly€erroneous.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€A.D.E.óó,Ï880€S.W.2d€241,€243€(Tex.€App.€1994).€€Thus,€specificity€in€the€findingsÍis€crucial.ÌÌà àIf€the€court€concludes€that€a€prima€facie€case€has€not€beenÏestablished,€no€explanation€may€be€required.€€If€the€court,€however,Ïdetermines€that€a€prima€facie€case€was€established€but€that€the€explanationÏis€sufficient,€or€that€the€totality€does€not€support€a€finding€of€purposefulÏdiscrimination,€the€juror€should€be€excluded€and€the€strike€countedÏagainst€the€excluding€party.€€If€the€court€finds€that€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€warrant€a€finding€of€purposeful€discrimination,€the€jurorÏshould€remain,€his€or€her€name€should€not€be€announced,€and€theÏexcluding€party€should€be€restored€to€the€peremptory€challenge.€ÏAlternatively,€if€the€court€finds€that€purposeful€discrimination€has€beenÏestablished,€the€court€can€exclude€the€entire€venire€and€begin€selectionÏwith€a€new€panel.€€In€any€event,€having€found€purposeful€discriminationÏbased€on€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€the€court€cannot€allow€theÏexercise€of€the€challenge.€€To€do€so€not€only€permits€racial€discriminationÏin€jury€selection,€it€endorses€the€wrong€with€the€imprimatur€of€the€court.€ÏTherefore,€plaintiff€is€entitled€to€a€new€trial€in€this€case.ÌÌà@ àB.€€Excluded€EvidenceÌà àSince€this€case€must€be€retried,€we€will€address€the€other€issuesÍraised€by€€plaintiff.€€Plaintiff's€allegations€included€a€claim€of€negligentÏentrustment€against€defendant€Morris'€employer,€Porter€BrownÏLimestone€Company.€€€A€claim€of€negligent€entrustment€requires€proofÏthat€a€chattel€was€entrusted€to€one€incompetent€to€use€it€with€knowledge€ofÏthe€incompetence,€and€that€its€use€was€the€proximate€cause€of€injury€orÏdamage€to€another.€€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€390€(1964).€€Thus,Ïone€who€entrusts€another€with€an€automobile€knowing€of€the€other'sÏincompetence€may€be€held€liable€for€injuries€proximately€caused€by€theÏnegligent€use€of€the€automobile.€€òòV.L.€Nicholson€Const.€Co.€v.€Laneóó,€150ÏS.W.2d€1069,€1070€(Tenn.€1941).€€Ìà àFrom€1981€until€the€time€of€the€accident€in€this€case,€defendantÏMorris€had€been€involved€in€nine€accidents,€including€at€least€two€rear„end€collisions.€€Plaintiff€offered€evidence€of€defendant€Morris'€priorÏaccidents€to€establish€that€defendant€Porter€Brown€was€negligent€inÏentrusting€the€vehicle€to€such€a€driver.€€The€trial€judge€agreed€that€theÏevidence€was€probative€on€the€essential€elements€of€the€claim,€butÏexcluded€it€under€Rule€403,€finding€that€it€was€"so€good€that€it'sÏprejudicial."€€ÌÌà àIn€their€case,€defendants€introduced€testimony€from€three€companyÏofficials€that,€at€safety€meetings,€the€company€frequently€cautionedÍdefendant€Morris€and€others€to€be€careful€on€the€road.€€The€witnesses€alsoÏtestified€that€defendant€Morris€was€conscientious€in€the€care€andÏmaintenance€of€his€truck.€€Additionally,€defendants€offered€the€testimonyÏof€a€friend€of€defendant€Morris'€who€had€observed€defendant€MorrisÏavoid€a€rear„end€collision€moments€before€the€fatal€accident€in€this€case.€ÏPlaintiff€did€not€object€to€the€admission€of€the€evidence,€but€later€arguedÏthat€this€testimony€opened€the€door€for€the€introduction€of€the€previouslyÏexcluded€prior€accident€evidence.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€The€trial€judge€disagreed€and€abidedÏby€his€prior€ruling€excluding€the€evidence€of€prior€accidents.ÌÌà àPlaintiff's€theory€of€the€case€was€that€defendant€Morris€hit€theÏTerrell€vehicle€first€from€behind,€then€on€the€side€after€the€vehicleÏskidded€around.€€It€was€plaintiff's€position€that€defendant,€due€to€failingÏeyesight€and€age,€failed€to€control€his€truck.€€Plaintiff€further€alleged€thatÏdefendant€Porter€Brown€knew€of€defendant€Morris'€poor€eyesight,€€knewÏhe€did€not€wear€glasses,€knew€of€his€prior€accidents,€and€neverthelessÏentrusted€him€to€drive€the€truck.€€On€that€cause€of€action,€plaintiff€wasÏrequired€to€prove€Morris'€prior€incompetence€as€a€driver€and€PorterÍBrown's€knowledge€of€it.€€Morris'€prior€driving€record€was€essential€toÏproving€that€claim.€€As€such,€the€prior€specific€acts€were€a€requisiteÏelement€of€the€cause€of€action€and€admissible.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€405(b).€ÏWhile€the€proof€offered€was€admittedly€strong€and€damaging,€plaintiffÏhad€no€other€means€to€prove€the€essential€element€of€negligentÏentrustment.€€Therefore,€its€relevance€and€probativeness€was€substantial.€ÏAs€is€often€the€case€with€extremely€persuasive€evidence,€its€introductionÏwas€likewise€prejudicial.€€We€disagree,€however,€with€the€trial€judge'sÏconclusion€that€the€probative€value€was€"substantially€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€unfair€prejudice."€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€403.€€The€plaintiff€shouldÏhave€been€allowed€to€introduce€the€evidence€in€the€case€in€chief.€€OnÏretrial,€upon€introduction,€the€trial€judge€should€give€a€carefully€detailedÏlimiting€instruction€advising€the€jury€as€to€the€use€of€the€evidence.× ƒ5 ××  ×ÌÌà àà àRules€404€and€406€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€guideÏour€resolution€of€the€evidentiary€matters€raised€by€defendant€PorterÏBrown's€proof.€€First,€Rule€404(a)€excludes€evidence€of€conduct€on€oneÍoccasion€for€the€purpose€of€establishing€conduct€in€conformity€with€thatÏconduct€on€another€occasion.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(a).€€While€suchÏevidence€may€be€admissible€for€some€other€purpose,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï404(b),€proof€of€specific€instances€of€conduct€are€only€admissible€withÏpermission€on€cross„examination,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€405(a),€or€whenÏcharacter€is€an€essential€element€of€a€claim€or€defense.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.Ï405(b).ÌÌà àAs€to€the€evidence€regarding€safety€meetings,€we€agree€that€thisÏevidence€was€relevant€to€rebut€plaintiff's€claim€that€defendant€PorterÏBrown€did€not€conduct€regular€safety€meetings€as€required€by€truckingÏregulations.€€As€such,€it€addressed€a€material€issue,€was€not€offered€asÏpropensity€evidence,€and€was€admissible.€€ÌÌà àWe€view€the€evidence€of€Morris'€conscientiousness€about€his€truckÏdifferently.€€Plaintiff€did€not€allege€that€defendant€Morris€did€òònotóó€takeÏcare€of€his€vehicle.€€This€evidence€had€no€legitimate€purpose€other€than€toÏattempt€to€persuade€the€jury€that€defendant€Morris€was€a€careful€man.€€AsÏsuch€it€runs€afoul€of€Rule€404(b)€and€is€inadmissible.× ƒ6 ××  ×ÌÌà àSimilarly,€the€testimony€of€Roy€Head€that€defendant€Morris€hadÏavoided€an€accident€moments€earlier€causes€us€concern.€€While€defendantÏPorter€Brown€proffered€that€the€evidence€was€to€rebut€plaintiff's€claimsÏthat€defendant€Morris€had€poor€eyesight,€no€limiting€instruction€wasÏgiven.€€The€evidence€was€insufficient€to€rise€to€the€level€of€habit€evidence,ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€406,€but€invited€the€jury,€again,€to€imply€the€trait€ofÏcarefulness.€ÌÌà àWhile€not€admissible€to€imply€conduct€in€conformity€with€the€traitÏof€carefulness,€the€evidence€might€be€admissible€if,€€as€defendants€suggest,Ïit€is€offered€for€another€purpose.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€404(b).€€The€purposeÏmust€be€material,€and€the€probative€value€of€the€evidence€must€not€beÏoutweighed€by€the€danger€of€prejudice.€€òòIdóó.€€When€a€court€admitsÏevidence€for€some€"other€purpose"€under€Rule€404(b),€it€generally€shouldÏbe€accompanied€with€a€limiting€instruction€explaining€to€the€jury€theÏpermissible€use€of€the€evidence.€€ÌÌà àEven€if€the€evidence€addresses€some€legitimate€other€purpose,€theÏjudge€must€determine€whether€the€type€of€evidence€offered€is€appropriate.ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€405.€€Rule€405€disallows€the€use€of€specific€instances€ofÍconduct€in€cases€in€which€character€traits€are€admissible€except€withÏpermission€on€cross„examination,€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€405(a),€or€when€theÏcharacter€trait€is€an€essential€element€of€the€claim€or€defense.€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€405(b).€€Here,€character€is€not€an€essential€element.€€Further,€theÏevidence€was€elicited€on€direct€examination.€€Consequently,€the€specificÏprior€instances€of€defendant€Morris'€conduct€should€not€be€admitted€ifÏchallenged.ÌÌà@ àC.€€Change€of€VenueÌà àPlaintiff€requests€this€Court€to€grant€a€change€of€venue€in€the€eventÏof€retrial.€€This€issue€cannot€be€determined€by€this€Court€as€it€was€raisedÏfor€the€first€time€in€the€intermediate€appellate€court.€€A€request€forÏchange€of€venue€must€be€addressed€to€the€trial€court.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ20„4„201€(1995€Supp.).€€ÌÌà@ àIII.€€ConclusionÌà àFor€all€the€reasons€set€forth,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€CourtÏof€Appeals€and€the€trial€court€in€this€case€and€remand€for€a€new€trial.€ÏCosts€are€taxed€to€the€appellees.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àPenny€J.€White,€JusticeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€Birch,€J.J.