been in mind ever since I started working with the company. Appellees emphasized at trial — and again on appeal — that Genie was aware of the lift’s potential to tip over and cause injury, at any height, if moved while the bucket was in the air but did nothing to “design out” the defect, despite cost-effective fixes or alternatives to prevent it. Genie counters by arguing that the hazard was warned against through a warning lab must be considered in allocating responsibility for the injury.” Hernandez, 2 S.W.3d at 257. While consumers and end users máy not have a duty to discover or guard against a product’s defect, a consumer’s conduct — other than a failure to discover or guard against the product defect — is subject to comparative responsibility. See Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d at 594 (<HOLDING>); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. §
recognizingpublic policy favors arbitration holding that public policy favors the exclusion of intentional acts as contained in the mjua policy holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control holding that public policy favors reasonable conduct by consumers regardless of whether a product is defective and does not relieve a consumer of the responsibility to act reasonably recognizing that texas public policy favors charitable gifts