*1 30115. In Bank. Dec. 1974.] No. [L.A. AULT, FRANCIS Plaintiff Respondent,
DARRELL COMPANY, INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER Defendant Appellant.
Counsel Wise, & Kilpatrick D. Clayton, E. Wise and William Easton for George Defendant and Appellant. *4 Bambic, Ford, Charbonneau &
Harney, Charbonneau & Bambic Harney, and David M. for Plaintiff and Harney Respondent. Cotchett, Hutchinson, W.
Joseph Cotchett & Robert E. William Cartwright, H. I. Pollock, I. Edward Lally, Stephen Sanford M. Zetterberg, and Gage Leonard Sacks as Amici on Curiae behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent. Opinion
MOSK, J. Plaintiff was in an accident a injured motor vehicle involving “Scout,” a known as manufactured defendant. He an action brought that the accident was alleging caused a defect in the of ve the design hicle, that he was entitled asserting under theories of strict recovery breach of liability, warranty, negligence. box of the Scout gear involved in the accident was manufactured
of aluminum material which asserts was defective plaintiff At the purpose. trial evidence established that after the accident defendant from changed aluminum 380 to in malleable iron the of the production A $700,000 box. gear returned a verdict of in On plaintiff’s favor. the from appeal defendant maintains that the trial ensuing judgment, court erred in several the admission of and exclusion evi- rulings regarding dence. It admission places reliance the into evidence of primary the upon box, to malleable iron the change manufacture the gear contending that the of this evidence violates the sec- receipt contained in prohibition was conclude that the evidence tion 1151 the Evidence Code.1 We prop- 1151 do not in an admitted because the section apply erly provisions liable to be under alleged theory action which defendant strict liability. 8, 1964, was as a
On the of November riding passenger morning plaintiff California, Mile when in the Scout on Nine Road near Canyon Mojave, him vehicle 500 feet to bottom of canyon, injuring plunged accident, wide Just The road 20 feet seriously. dry. prior at 10 to 15 miles an hour. The Scout was traveling speed Mile Road on Canyon owner and driver of the vehicle had traversed Nine the driver and two occasions in Scout without Both difficulty. as testify amnesia and were unable to retrograde developed circumstances of the accident. accident, the Scout had
After the it was discovered that the box on the Scout was broken. Plaintiff contended that break occurred while control, whereas the vehicle to out of traveling go highway, causing hurtled defendant asserted box broke on as the vehicle impact down into either by that the accident was caused driver canyon roadway. collapse
It was that the the alumi- contention box broke because plaintiff’s gear 380 out of which it and he num was made suffered from metal fatigue, a Plain- number of witnesses in of this theory. produced support expert testified tiff’s witnesses also that aluminum was an unsuitable material 380 box, out of which to build the that malleable iron was than stronger gear 380, aluminum that a box made would have been of malleable iron accident, fail, less to and that after the defend- likely three years ant manufacture of substituted malleable iron for aluminum 380 the Scout’s box. it asserts
Defendant that the admission of evidence changed 380 to iron accident violated the from aluminum malleable after the pro view, however, and the of section 1151. In leg our scription language is islative of section demonstrate section history designed for cases or conduct on involving part negligence culpable defendant, is than to in which manufacturer rather those circumstances a be a on the market. to liable defective strictly for alleged placing product event, “When, pre of an remedial or provides, after the occurrence 1Section taken, which, cautionary previously to measures are if taken would tended occur, likely subsequent to evidence such measures is inad make event less prove negligence with the All culpable conduct in connection event.” missible or Code, statutory references will be the Evidence unless otherwise noted. Furthermore, we are not that the rationale which persuaded impelled the rule set Legislature forth section cases adopt involving is and we negligence suits founded strict applicable liability, upon therefore decline to extend the judicially section application litiga- tion founded that upon theory.
Section its own terms excludes evidence of remedial or measures such is precautionary only when evidence offered to prove or conduct. negligence In an action based strict culpable liability upon manufacturer, a against is not a necessary culpability ingre- dient. The recover if he establishes that the plaintiff may product defective, he and need show not that the defendants breached a duty Products, (Greenman due care. v. Yuba Power Cal.2d 62-63 377 P.2d 1049].)2 A.L.R.3d Defendant maintains that the conduct” in section phrase “culpable broad to sufficiently strict concedes encompass liability. It that term blameworthiness, “culpable” a manufacturer in a strict implies However, action be in a sense. asserts blameworthy legal defendant, a manufacturer who has defective mar- placed product sense, ket is in a moral blameworthy therefore guilty “culpable conduct” within the of section 1151. are meaning unpersuaded We this tenuous construction. It is difficult to if contrary conclusion: escape had Legislature intended to cases strict liability encompass involving within the ambit of section it would have an less used expression related to and consistent with fault affirmative than conduct”— “culpable which, a term under defendant’s would embrace a moral rather theory, than a duty.3 legal our conclusion that it section 1151 history compel *6 to cases found on the of strict theory liability
was not intended to apply draftsmen, to its section 1151 action. According in products liability (Law was intended “well-settled law.” Revision Com. merely codify recovery impelled two 2The clear theoretical distinction between these bases Torts, (Rest.2d contrary to in a decision to hold that the Restatement court recent 402a), theory required, prevail liability, § is not in order on the of strict user, dangerous unreasonably to show that a to the and that product it sufficient (Cronin injury. if he demonstrates that it a defect which caused him contained (1972) 433, Corp. 121, 1153].) Olson Cal.Rptr. J.B.E. 8 Cal.3d 135 501 [104 P.2d argument of “culpable interpreted 3Another defendant is that unless conduct” is liability, meaning strict has no phrase include in section 1151 because it would However, synonymous be “negligence.” faulty then with types there are conduct negligence conduct,” than encompassed other which are within “culpable such as. (Donnelly (1941) wanton reckless misconduct. v. Southern Co. 18 Cal.2d Pacific 863, 465]; Torts, 500.) 869 [118 § Rest.2d
119 Code, evidence of subse 1151.) The rule excluding comment to Evid. § such were com rested on the notion that repairs repairs originally quent time of the negligence defendant’s at the irrelevant to the issue of pletely California, Thus, Sappenfield v. accident. the first case to this rule in adopt 590], P. stressed (1891) Main-St. etc. R.R. Co. Cal. [27 for the “The of the which renders him negligence responsible employer accident, and must accident what he did and knew before depends upon it, and not be facts and circumstances which by established preceded (See, Helling acts done after the v. Schindler him occurrence.” e.g., (1904) 710].) 312-315 P. Cal. [78
On the other hand a sev number of more recent cases have recognized eral exclusion cases. For rule of in exceptions negligence example, is rele several decisions that evidence of acknowledge subsequent repairs vant to the issue in time for if the occur closely negligence, changes they well illustrate the at the time of feasibility improvement accident, (See one of the normal elements in the calculus. negligence ; Johnson v. United (D.Mont. 1958) States e.g., 163 F.Supp. 395 Works, Contracting Baldwin Co. v. Winston Steel Cal. 421]; Mfg. Co. App.2d Varas v. Barco Cal.Rptr.
Cal.App.2d retained the exclu- Nevertheless, and legislatures frequently courts reasoning as a matter of “public policy,” cases rule negligence sionary to avoid necessary deterring bemay of such evidence that the exclusion after an accident has or repairs from making improvements individuals rationale. on this “public policy” Section 1151 rests occurred. explicitly section, states: the draftsmen’s comment In explaining negligence prove of evidence of repairs “The admission after the oc- from making repairs substantially would discourage persons comment added.) Revision Com. (Italics (Law currence of an accident.” Code, 1151.) to Evid. § func- this anti-deterrent fulfill of section 1151 may
While provisions action, no plays comparable tion typical negligence provision rule cod- law the common Historically, field. role products usual with reference in section 1151 was ified developed City (see, a sidewalk action, e.g., into a hole in in which a fell pedestrain *7 774) a (Fla. 1955) 83 So.2d or Beach v. Miami Wolfe of Rapid Transit Hadges York v. New (see, unstable stairs e.g., on injured 304]); in such cir- N.Y.S.2d Div. 154 Corporation 259 App. or cumstances, to assume that a landowner potential be realistic it may such be deterred from if could be making defendant repairs repairs might in for the initial accident. used him against determining liability is a to When the context transformed from setting typical negligence field, however, the modern the liability policy” products “public assump- no valid. tions rule are evidentiary justifying longer contempo- mass of de- rary normal products liability corporate producer goods, fendant, of of it manufactures tens thousands units of is goods; manifestly unrealistic to that such a will suggest forego producer making improve- risk and ments in its and innumerable additional lawsuits product, its attendant adverse effect because evidence of image, upon public simply an of such be admitted in action founded on adoption improvement strict for on an that liability recovery injury preceded improvement. area, In of rule section 1151 does products liability exclusionary affect the not conduct of the mass of but serves primary producer goods, short, as a shield In of merely liability. section against potential is not to strict case and hence its liability a exclusionary applicable rule should be not extended to that field. gratuitously
This view has been It has that advanced others. been out not by pointed is of and of doubtful encouraging policy repairs improvements validity in an action for since it is in the strict economic self liability interest of a manufacturer to defective but improve repair products, that the of the rule would be to of contrary application public policy of distributor market safer encouraging mass-produced goods prod- (Note, Liability Subsequent Repairs, ucts. Products and Evidence of Duke 845-852.)4 L.J. underlying cogent analysis 4In policy of the considerations admission of context, states, evidence of the author changes products post-occurrence “The assumption subsequent discourages admission of evidence of repairs making defendants from required repairs may be erroneous. Manufacturers and mass-produced distributors of consumer as the be products m.ay safety so callous of the general Furthermore, exclusionary presumes. rule to the extent that injured admission of such recovery by argued evidence results in plaintiffs, it be can that encourages evidence of repairs future remedial action. A distributor mass-produced goods may goods products thousands on the market. If his defective, are the distributor probably greater would face total liability allowing such defective products by continuing to remain on the market or more put de products fective on the being adjudged market than he would liable Also, one particular case of subsequent repairs where evidence was introduced. concern part protection promoted distributors consumer by consumer organizations, agencies, federal product mass exposure media defects. To requires extent, product some the economic self-interest of they distributors repair from future in similar improve products might defective publicity avoid adverse which result litigation. finding product Since a defectiveness is admissible a subsequent product causing suit injury substantially when the the second first, products repair distributors defective pressure are under *8 of Sutkowski v. Universal Marion Corporation (1972) The recent case conclusion. N.E.2d this 749], Ill.App.3d directly supports are that field considerations Noting products liability “policy which shift the involved the from emphasis manufacturer’s defendant to the character at conduct the N.E.2d added) (italics (281 products” of the Sutkowski court that 753), held the Illinois rule p. excluding statutory evidence to of in not did cases post-occurrence apply changes cases. products liability the difference between the of and negli
Given section above, that in noted it not actions liability surprising products gence the the section to actions in confined drafting Legislature provision is at issue. conduct” which defendant’s “negligence” “culpable which drafted Law Commission Neither nor the Revision Legislature .use of sub likely evidentiary the section could been oblivious- Thus, in cases. the limitation of liability strict sequent design changes to deliberate section causes of must be deemed action essentially negligence and significant.5 court
Defendant other of trial evidentiary numerous assigns rulings as error. It witnesses court allowed expert trial complains one, to an accident to as well testify regarding present occurring prior as one which boxes made of aluminum 380 in occurring subsequently, gear in Scout vehicles had failed. is asserted that the court erred It allegedly in did not that there was because show admitting testimony a substantial between the other two accidents and circum similarity case, stances of the and that was in effect required defendant present cases, three lawsuits in each these try separate that prove case, as well as box broke present impact. a defective other accidents admissible prove
Evidence of accident, that cir- condition, of an provided or the cause knowledge, finding which of defectiveness from a products their to insulate themselves alter them, against litigation. subsequent be used encourage repairs conclusion, excluding future “In evidence products which are may preclude recovery under theories action remedial evidence should products. Relevant designed safety to ensure in marketed themselves evidentiary rule when products liability case an obsolete be excluded from not theories, achieve legal accompanied political pressures, will .by economic modern omitted.) (Id., 848-850.) (Fns. the desired policy at goals.” pp. change iron in the manu of the to malleable 5Our conclusion that evidence defendant’s violate also answers boxes does not section facture admitting replaced had that that court erred in evidence defendant assertion Furthermore, engines fire with iron. pedal the aluminum brake on its malleable change. object did the admission evidence defendant *9 of the cumstances other accidents are and not (Kopfinger similar too remote. v. Central Pub. Market Grand Cal.2d Here, P.2d the witnesses had been retained in expert other the the litigation boxes involved in the analyze properties gear accidents, other and had reached the had conclusion that failed be they case, cause of metal the trial In of the described the fatigue. present they they tests and testified performed, that in their the opinion physical proper ties of all three were boxes similar and that the failure in the gear present case was also due to metal The who fatigue. testified expert regarding first accident box involved in that accident compared damaged with gear case, in the the box and stated a blow box that would not present gear have caused failure in either The other accident. witness’ con testimony sisted of an of the tests largely account scientific he had performed aluminum 380 to determine its and the he conclusions had properties, reached from those tests.
Thus, of the was to indicate that all although testimony box, three accidents occurred because of the the focus failure was on the accidents themselves but in the similárity inherent upon boxes, and mechanical of the three all of physical which properties contained defects. there was that similar Since no all purportedly dispute three instruments were manufactured we out aluminum cannot conclude that the evidence was admitted. erroneously
Defendant that asserts the trial court also erred in to allow refusing (in it to introduce evidence that in a trial between the which prior parties verdict), were unable to on a in his jurors agree had plaintiff alleged that the accident was caused the intoxication complaint proximately of the driver of the vehicle. action was dismissed against driver trial of the prior action. Defendant that previous urges superseded as admissible both substan pleading purposes impeachment tive evidence of a inconsistent statement under sections 770 and However, 1235. in which the made had not complaint allegation been verified there had was no that he seen the by plaintiff, showing or furnished the information on which it (Zanotto was based pleading and defendant 826]), Marogna Cal.App.2d refers to no at the which trial with testimony present by plaintiff is inconsistent. Under these allegation superseded complaint circumstances, court trial examination of refused admit correctly on the basis of the plaintiff prior pleading. the course of the trial read into evidence testi
During of an from In the witness the first trial of this action. course mony expert that the witness was asked if he had heard the testimony reading Beckett another witness named an of 20 or 25 Scout inspection *10 that 60 suffered either vehicles had revealed worm percent pitting had, in the The witness that he or cracks box. expert replied that his own was consistent with Beckett’s Defendant’s testimony finding. the instant case to to the Beckett reference attorney objected any opinion on the The trial court overruled the on the ground hearsay. objection in the that Beckett would case and testify essentially premise present give he at the such same had offered trial. If testimony testimony prior court, stated evidence would be stricken on mo- forthcoming, Thereafter, testified, tion. when Beckett did not he relate opinion attributed to him in the trial. Defendant did a not make motion to prior strike Beckett’s but moved for a mistrial after rested his opinion, plaintiff case on the failure to cure admission ground into evidence of plaintiff’s Beckett’s hearsay opinion.
When evidence is adduced that it will be theory upon properly connected, strike, to a motion and that motion is not subse subject a is deemed to have waived the thereto. quently urged, party objection (People 296], Benenato 360-361 P.2d Cal.App.2d Wright on other re in In 65 Cal.2d 654- disapproved grounds Defendant asserts that it failed to deliberately make the motion because the evidence of Beckett’s was too to be corrected opinion a motion to strike and prejudicial an admonition to the would jury have served to recall the testimony mind. jury’s do not
We find this contention to be meritorious. It is evident from the that the trial court had transcript overlooked earlier plaintiff’s promise a foundation for the lay Beckett which was admitted into prior opinion, evidence several before Beckett testified in the instant case. A days motion to strike would have served of his failure reminding plaintiff to elicit direct trial testimony concerning opinion expressed so that would have been afforded the plaintiff opportunity supply Instead, foundational until necessary defendant testimony. delayed plain- case, Moreover, tiff had rested his and then moved for mistrial. belatedly the Beckett was not so in the context of this trial that opinion prejudicial an admonition would been effect. It consisted of jury without statement one witness for a total of single eight among plaintiff, Thus, who testified that if box was defective. even experts foundation, had been unable to an admonition proper supply appropriate would have cured the error. other Defendant several errors in the admission and exclusion urges evidence, since, but we need not discuss these in detail even arguments meritorious, its if contentions are no resulted from the alleged prejudice errors. is affirmed. judgment J., McComb, J., Sullivan, J., Burke, J.,* Tobriner, J., C.
Wright, concurred.
I *11 CLARK, J.I dissent.
Section 1151 of the Evidence Code excludes evidence of subsequent modifications conduct.” Cul- remedial when offered to prove “culpable a conduct includes conduct a Because pable duty. breaching legal plaintiff on a the defendant must seeking recovery liability theory product prove breached his not to a defective in the stream of legal duty product place commerce, section is to us. the case before applicable censurable; “[b]lamable; the breach defined as:
“Culpable” involving of a or the fault. The term is not duty necessarily commission a legal ‘criminal,’ use, to its deriva equivalent notwithstanding present tion, it that the act or of is or conduct implies wrong spoken reprehensible but not that it con involves malice or a in fact guilty ‘Culpable’ purpose. 1958) fault (Black’s (4th *12 590].) 91 Cal. 62 P. Lack of value is the basis for the probative [27 rule exclusionary to Professor he according Wigmore, although recognizes that some courts have also relied on to avoid public policy discouraging (2 from persons an accident. on Evi- making repairs following Wigmore (3d 1940) 151-159.)1 dence ed. pp.
There is even less value when evidence of probative subsequent change is offered to an admission in cases. in liability prove Change product policy encouraging following 1The of be may an accident not viewed modification as of exclusionary the basis the rule is considered in section rule when light present of by only California law. Section 1151 terms excludes evidence its prove necessarily negligence when offered to culpability; or the section does not (Morehouse exclude evidence probative when it is v. Taub other relevant issues. 308]; (1970) Bagues man Co. & Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. Sanchez 372]; Sons Mortuaries Cal.Rptr. Baldwin Cal.App.2d 190-191 [76 Contracting Works, Co. v. Winston Cal.App.2d Steel chattel, change A party contemplating property, in his real or product change certainty to trial of will cannot know with that evidence his frustrating not be received as negligence culpability, relevant issues other than policy encouraging of safety admissibility is not modification. Because lack of predictable only under be the basis California rules but determined on trial, developed goal encouraging substantially of issues at of is not modifications furthered section 1151. m.ajority argue change The of unlikely potential it is that admission of evidence But, making changes safety. deter be- will manufacturers from toward increased encouraging change reasoning cause is not of section does reject a basis application liability furnish to product section cases. nature of to the remedial reasons unrelated made for
product frequently to decrease are the desires for change the motivations Among change. The most striking or salability. or to increase efficiency cost production indus- the automobile value is of lack of supplied illustration probative It is absurd made in a new model. hundreds of are changes Each year try. admission the modification each reflects an change suggest a defect. to remedy made value, heat of negli- the lack of juries, probative
Notwithstanding change—may single or liability trials—learning gence product defect and may an admission of or conclude the reflects negligence change The admission. danger and decisive great weight perceived give in cases as liability as such misuse of evidence is at least great product cases. negligence of evidence of lack and the of misuse
The value danger probative defect are not cured when the issue before change subsequent the word rather than and no reason exists refusing give negligence, section I conclude that its common Accordingly, “culpable” meaning. cases. 1151 should be applicable product
n section 1151 to the evidence issue is the remaining application 380 to malleable that International Harvester from aluminum changed when used to negligence iron. Section 1151 excludes evidence only prove change or conduct. Case law allows evidence culpable issues conduct. For ev other than example, prove culpable *13 be admitted when it tends to idence of subsequent may precautions properly Atchison, (Daggett Ry. v. T. & S. F. the of a witness. testimony impeach 655, 557]; (1957) Levy 48 Brothers Co. Cal.2d 661 P.2d v. [313 Hatfield 798, (1941) 841]; Inyo v. 18 Cal.2d 809-810 Chemical Co. P.2d [117 Angeles 525, City (1936) 850].) Los 5 Cal.2d 543-544 P.2d [55 relevance to a jury Despite proper purpose, danger improperly as an admission of fault is and the evidence viewing legal apparent, well value of the evidence. of misuse Not danger outweigh probative is such misuse created only contrary by express Legis- prohibition lature, but also the misuse is unfair to defendant. To alleviate manifestly and to unfairness potential implement legislative prohibition, trial court balance the need for the evidence carefully must against itsof use. dangers before evidence of as received rele-
Consequently, subsequent change
127 issue, the evidence must vant to a introducing persuasively proper party “issue on it is offered is of sub- the trial court2 that which satisfy and not merely formally stantial actually, dispute, importance establish the fact to be inferred conveniently by cannot other that the need for the evidence outweighs proof, consequently 668-669; (McCormick, (2d 1972) its ed. of misuse.” Evidence danger pp. also, Code, 352; Bagues (1969) v. & Sons Mortuaries see Evid. § Sanchez 188, Jefferson, 372]; Evidence 191 Cal. Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [76 21.1; Evid., (1972) Benchbook cf. Fed. Rules of § § Proposed Comment.) the Practice
To admit such evidence to issues not improperly actually prove disputed (Sanchez other evidence the statute. easily by judicially provable repeals Mortuaries, Bagues 188, 191-193; supra, v. & Sons Pierce 271 Cal.App.2d Penney (1959) v. J. C. Co. P.2d Cal.App.2d [334 When test is not to evidence of modi- three-part applied subsequent fication, and the admission of such evidence in a results miscarriage the case (Hrnjak Graymar, should be justice, reversed. 224];
Cal.3d 484 P.2d 47 A.L.R.3d People 243]; Const., v. Watson 46 Cal.2d Cal. VI, 13.) art. §
In this case the record not indicates that the above test three-part was not considered the court before evidence of admitting subsequent modification, but also that introduced such evidence plaintiff apparently issue of of malleable iron to avoid of section feasibility application 1151. The in this case was whether the aluminum primary steering dispute and, box caused the was not a contested issue Feasibility even injury. contested, if could been International evidence other than proven Harvester’s aluminum box.3 subsequent replacement steering gear the evidence should have been Accordingly, excluded.
The record reveals introduction of the modifica- improper tion was highly defendant. The evidence on the critical prejudicial issue *14 Hrnjak Graymar, 2The proof burden of established in 4 Cal.3d 224], 733 [94 applied 47 A.L.R.3d should be Although Hrnjak rule, here. was concerned with the collateral source similar issue presented (See, Jefferson, 21.1.) in this case. § Cal. Evidence Benchbook example, feasibility 3For offering could have been proven by evidence that other produced manufacturers vehicles with steering prior a malleable iron box the accident. The introduced evidence that International in Harvester had accident, stalled the steering malleable iron box on some vehicles This evidence was reasonably feasibility. convenient and could proven actually
—whether the aluminum box caused steering gear injury— trial, balanced. the first was In unable reach a ver- closely trial, dict. second trial tactics included constant During plaintiff’s box, emphasis subsequent change steering gear resulting circumstances, Under verdict. these it must be concluded the plaintiff’s verdict, of evidence admission affected the consti- improper substantially reversible error. tuting for a was denied
Appellant’s petition rehearing January Clark, J., was modified to read as above. was of opinion printed should be petition opinion granted. notes rather than Law rev. ed. Dict. guilt.” p. 454.) From the it conduct above definition is clear includes “culpable” a blame connotes moral breaching legal duty. Concededly, “culpable” fault; however, worthiness or to the moral the definition is not restricted legal legal latter includes blameworthiness and fault. clearly concept, A a manufacturer in the stream of commerce has legal placing product (Greenman to defects v. Yuba Prod- duty prevent causing injury. Power ucts, (1963) 59 Cal.2d A.L.R.3d And before a recover on a may theory prod- plaintiff Thus, uct he must the defendant breached this liability, duty. prove definition, the must the defendant’s conduct prove “culpable,” such section 1151 evidence clearly proving culpability, using prohibits remedial measures. evidence of subsequent important policy underlying prohibiting is as actions. change actions as negligence applicable product assignment sitting *Retired Supreme Associate Justice of the under Court Chairman of the Judicial Council. cases is that the may The basis for exclusion in negligence jury an injury, view the as an admission of fault. Following unjustifiably change rendered the in- modifications will be made which would have frequently less be the result of some feel- these modifications likely. might While was made because it is at least as ing responsibility, probable change it was the do. conduct is not desirable humane Such socially thing standard of an admission that the was the modification probative required of conduct It be the standard have been injury. may thought Or, after the is known. the defendant have desired only injury may required Evid., to rise above the (See, standard. Fed. Rules of required Proposed Comment, 104.) Practice be § not Finally, change may safety p. functional, measure at all but rather a made for aesthetic or eco- change nomic reasons. value, the lack of court Acknowledging years probative many ago held an admission of founded on be evidence of an accident and that when such evidence relevant change following (Helling admission it must be excluded. v. Schindler prove 710]; Sappenfield Cal. P. v. Main-St. etc. R.R. Co.