Finding fault with Ault - why the exclusion of subsequent design change evidence in product liability cases makes sense, even in California

The following is an all too common occurrence in products liability cases alleging a design defect: a plaintiff alleges he or she was injured due to a design defect in a product; the manufacturer of the product, at some point after the accident, alters the very design feature plaintiff alleges was the cause of the accident; plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of this subsequent design change at trial, realizing the powerful impact such evidence can have with many jurors. The reasoned analysis in more recent cases and the practical experience obtained in the thirty-six years since the Ault decision was rendered both demonstrate how outdated the reasoning in Ault is and explain why Ault is now clearly in the small minority of jurisdictions allowing the introduction of subsequent design changes in strict liability actions. Even though it is contrary to the policies justifying the exclusionary rule, Ault is still the rule in California and several other jurisdictions.