Ault v. International Harvester Company

Supreme Court of California · 1974 · Evidence

13 Cal. 3d 113 (1974)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceSubsequent remedial measuresStrict products liabilitysection 1151subsequent repairsstrict liabilityproducts liabilityother accidents

Facts

Plaintiff was seriously injured when a Scout manufactured by defendant plunged 500 feet off a canyon road while traveling only 10 to 15 miles per hour. After the accident, the Scout's gear box was found broken; plaintiff claimed the aluminum 380 gear box failed from metal fatigue before the fall, while defendant claimed it broke only on impact and that the accident was caused by driver negligence or road collapse. Plaintiff presented expert testimony that aluminum 380 was unsuitable for the gear box, that malleable iron was stronger, and that in 1967 defendant substituted malleable iron for aluminum 380 in Scout gear boxes. The trial court admitted that post-accident design change evidence, and also admitted certain evidence concerning other similar gear box failures.

Issue

Does Evidence Code section 1151 exclude evidence of a manufacturer's post-accident design change when the plaintiff seeks recovery on a strict products liability theory? Also, did the trial court err in admitting evidence of other gear box failures and in rejecting certain other evidentiary objections?

Rule

Evidence Code section 1151 excludes evidence of subsequent remedial or precautionary measures only when offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct. Because negligence or culpability is not a necessary element of strict products liability, section 1151 does not apply to bar such evidence in a strict products liability action. Evidence of other accidents is admissible to prove defective condition, knowledge, or causation if the other accidents occurred under similar circumstances and are not too remote.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In San Diego, Lena Ortiz was injured when a home exercise machine allegedly collapsed because its support bracket was too weak. She sued North Bay Fitness Systems only for strict products liability, and at trial she offered proof that one year later the company thickened the bracket in later units.

North Bay objects under Evidence Code section 1151. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that section 1151 excludes subsequent remedial measures only when offered to prove negligence or culpable conduct. In a strict products liability action, negligence is not a necessary element; the focus is on whether the product was defective and caused injury. Therefore, evidence of a later design change is not barred on that ground.