Verdict: Substantial Change Finally, Ford contends that the ICA erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of Ford’s motion for a directed verdict. Ford maintains that the plaintiff in a products liability suit must demonstrate, as part of his or her prima facie case, the absence of any substantial change once the product leaves the seller’s hands. In this case, it is agreed that plaintiffs did not submit any evidence on the issue of substantial change; this final p ither the sole burden of raising and proving substantial change as an affirmative defense, see Placencio v. Allied Indus. Int'l, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.1987), or the burden of proving the issue in certain eases or in limited respects, see Andrews v. Harley Davidson, Inc. 106 Nev. 533, 796 P.2d 1092, 1096-97 & n. 3 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Navarro v. George Koch & Sons, Inc., 211
recognizing that the burden of persuasion for a showing of prejudice was on the defendant holding plaintiff to his burden of persuasion on appeal of summary judgment holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the party asserting work product protection has the burden of establishing that the doctrine applies holding that defendant has the burden of proving that a product has been altered unless the product has been lost whereupon plaintiff must bear the burden of persuasion if the defense of substantial change is raised