Robert Barrett struck Richard Burnette’s unoccupied vehicle after Burnette stopped it in the roadway following a flat tire. A jury found Burnette negligent but still returned a verdict for him. Before trial, the court excluded evidence concerning Burnette’s intoxication, including a blood-alcohol result recorded after he returned to the accident scene. The Court of Appeals reversed. Evidence that Burnette was intoxicated could bear on whether he negligently left the vehicle in the road, and the passage of time between the collision and the later testing affected weight rather than admissibility. The majority held that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the evidence categorically. A dissent would have affirmed because the record did not show Burnette was intoxicated when he abandoned the vehicle and the proposed evidence risked inviting speculation. The majority returned the case for a new trial under the proper evidentiary analysis.