establish the Plaintiffs asbestos claim, whereas the proper inquiry is whether the testimony met the standards for admissibility. Admissibility is determined primarily by the evidentiary rules governing relevance, unfair prejudice, and competence. In this instance, the lay witnesses were competent to testify because they had personal knowledge of the presence of asbestos in their workplaces. Tenn. R. Evid. 602. Regardless of whether their testimony was sufficient to independently satisfy the requirements of a FELA claim, the evidence was relevant in that it made the existence of an injury resulting from asbestos exposure “more probable ... than it would be without the evidence.” Tenn. R. Evid. 401. The Defendant does not claim that th Or.App. 132, 185 P.3d 519, 523 (Or.Ct. App.2008) (<HOLDING>). The Defendant’s final claim of evi-dentiary
holding that a witness may testify about his subjective interpretation of a conversation in which he is participating as long as his opinion is rationally based on his perception and is helpful either to an understanding of his testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace which was based upon personal knowledge of employees was properly admitted holding that lay opinion testimony on the technical subject of asbestos in the workplace was inadmissible when the witness failed to demonstrate sufficient personal experience or technical knowledge to qualify him to offer an opinion holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace was competent evidence to support the  finding that plaintiff was exposed to asbestos holding that lay testimony as to the presence of asbestos in the workplace was admissible because it was rationally based upon the perception of the witness