The court's recitals preceding the decretal portion of the judgment do not determine the rights and interest of the parties. The modified de novo standard, Tex. We hold that submitting invalid theories of liability in a single broard-form jury quesiton is harmful error when it cannot be determined whether the jury based its verdict on one or more of the invalid theories. We believe that a 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. Thus, we hold that a consumer has no duty to discover or guard against a product defect, but a consumer's conduct other than the mere failure to discover or guard against a product defect is subject to comparative responsibility.
Public policy favors reasonable conduct by consumers regardless of whether a product is defective.
A consumer is not relieved of the resonsibility to act reasonably, nor may a consumer fail to take reasonable precautions regardless of a known or unknown product defect. Although an expert witness may typically be found exempt under the essential presence exception, expert's are not automatically exempt. Instead, Rule 614 and 267 vest in trial judges broad discretion to determine whether a witness is essential. We answer, yes. Two Courts of Appeals have answered yes and refused to enforce a policy provision barring duplication of UM and PIP benefits that would result in double recovery.