but the utility of the lift outweighed the risk of the lift tipping over and causing serious injury when it is assumed that the product will be used as intended (i.e. when properly stabilized). Genie conceded, however, that Logan’s use of the AWP-40S was a “foreseeable misuse” of the product. The fact that the lift’s utility is high and the risk of injury is low when the product is used as intended is but one consideration in the multitude of factors used in GrinnelV s risk-utility analysis. The fact that a product’s foreseeable risk of harm stems from a misuse of a product, rather than an intended use, is not an absolute bar to liability for the injury caused by a product’s defective design. Hernandez, 2 S.W.3d at 257; see Gen. Motors Corp. v. Sanchez, 997 S.W.2d 584, 594 (Tex.1999) (<HOLDING>). “Instead, misuse of a product is a factor
recognizing strict product liability actions holding that a consumers duty to discover defects and to take precautions in constant anticipation that a product might have a defect would defeat the purposes of strict liability 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 a successor corporation does not have a postsale duty to warn of product defects where the successor never succeeded to any service contracts was not aware of the products defects and did not know the location of the product at the time of plaintiffs injury holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective