Court Opinion

ID: 9772438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:17:46.844465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:44.390155
License: Public Domain

SPEARS, Justice,
concurring.
I do not agree with the majority’s holding that Allied’s misuse issues were not submitted in substantially correct form; however, I join this court’s judgment that affirms the trial court’s judgment.
To establish the defense of misuse, Allied was required to produce evidence (1) that Placencio misused the bench grinder; (2) that the manner in which Placencio misused the bench grinder was unforeseeable by Allied; and (3) that Placencio should have reasonably foreseen that his actions would cause his injury or a similar type of injury. See General Motors, Inc. v. Hopkins, 548 S.W.2d 344, 351-352 (Tex.1977). After examining the record, it is clear that Allied produced no evidence that Placen-cio’s alleged misuse was unforeseeable to Allied or that Placencio should have foreseen that his actions would cause his injury. Therefore, Allied’s requested misuse issues, although submitted in substantially correct form, were properly refused.