See Brisboy , supra at 550. Plaintiff argues that allowing defendant to introduce evidence of the decedent's exposures to other asbestos products would have been more prejudicial than probative and would only have served to confuse the jury. Under MRE 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Unfair prejudice exists when marginally relevant evidence might be given undue or preemptive weight by the jury or when it would be inequitable to allow use of such evidence. Contrary to plaintiff's argument, evidence of the decedent's exposure to the asbestos products of other manufacturers would not have been more prejudicial than probative.
Proximate cause is an essential element of plaintiff's case.
See Moll , supra . In order for the jury to determine whether defendant's product was a substantial factor in producing the decedent's injury, and therefore a proximate cause of the injury, it must be permitted to consider the number of other factors which contributed to produce the harm. See Restatement, supra . Accordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the decedent's exposures to other manufacturers' asbestos products. B We have concluded that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the decedent's exposure to other asbestos products.