## Facts

- Darrell Francis Ault was seriously injured as a passenger when an International Harvester “Scout” left a canyon road near Mojave, California, and fell roughly 500 feet.
- The Scout’s steering gear box was made of aluminum 380; after the accident, the manufacturer changed the gear box material to malleable iron.
- The driver and Ault suffered retrograde amnesia and could not testify about the accident.
- After the crash, the gear box was found broken; Ault claimed it fractured on the road and caused loss of control, while the manufacturer claimed it broke on impact and attributed the crash to other causes (including driver fault or road collapse).
- Ault sued under strict products liability, breach of warranty, and negligence, alleging defective design of the steering gear box.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted evidence of the post-accident material change; the jury awarded Ault $700,000.

## Issues

1. Whether California Evidence Code § 1151’s exclusion of subsequent remedial measures applies to strict products liability claims so as to bar evidence of post-accident product design changes offered to prove a defect.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment for Ault.
- Evidence Code § 1151 does not apply to strict products liability actions.
- The trial court properly admitted evidence that the manufacturer changed the gear box material after the accident as relevant to whether the product was defective when sold.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence Code § 1151 bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered to prove “negligence or culpable conduct,” and its deterrence policy is directed at fault-based liability.
- Strict products liability focuses on the condition of the product rather than the manufacturer’s culpable conduct; therefore, § 1151 is not triggered by strict-liability defect proof.
- In strict products liability cases, evidence of post-accident design or material changes may be admitted to help prove the existence of a defect at the time of the accident.
- Courts should not extend § 1151 beyond its terms to exclude probative defect evidence in strict products liability, even if negligence is also pleaded, when the evidence is used to show defect rather than culpability.

## Conclusion

The court held that California Evidence Code § 1151 does not exclude subsequent remedial measure evidence in strict products liability cases, permitting juries to consider post-accident design changes as proof that the product was defective when marketed.


Ault v. Int'l Harvester Co., 13 Cal. 3d 113, 528 P.2d 1148 (Cal. 1974)