Opinion ID: 1183412
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Subsequent Warnings

Text: Several years after Murray's accident occurred, appellants sent warning stickers to all known owners of Jeep CJ-5 vehicles. These warned of the lack of occupant protection provided by the CJ-5's top and doors, as well as the possibility of loss of control caused by sharp turns and abrupt maneuvers. Appellants contend that the warnings should not have been admitted into evidence. In Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970), we held that post-accident repair orders, though not admissible to show negligence, were admissible to prove the existence of a defect or any other necessary element of a cause of action sounding in strict liability. 86 Nev. at 416, 470 P.2d at 139-40. Appellants argue that our holding in Ginnis has been vitiated by the subsequent enactment of NRS 48.095 and our recent decision in Jacobson v. Manfredi, 100 Nev. 226, 679 P.2d 251 (1984). NRS 48.095 provides in substance that evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct. [6] The rationale underlying this statute, which is similar to others adopted in many jurisdictions, is that tortfeasors will be deterred from taking remedial measures after an accident if they believe that evidence of such measures may later be used against them. We believe that NRS 48.095 has no application here. By its terms, the statute comes into play only where negligence or other culpable conduct is alleged. See Schelbauer v. Butler Mfg. Co., 35 Cal.3d 442, 198 Cal. Rptr. 155, 159, 673 P.2d 743, 747 (1984); Ault v. International Harvester Company, 13 Cal.3d 113, 117 Cal. Rptr. 812, 814-15, 528 P.2d 1148, 1150-51 (1975); Burke v. Almaden Vineyards, Inc., 86 Cal. App.3d 768, 150 Cal. Rptr. 419, 421 n. 2 (1978) (construing statute similar to NRS 48.095). In a strict liability action, of course, culpability in the sense of fault need not be established. See Ginnis, 86 Nev. at 413, 470 P.2d at 138; Shoshone Coca-Cola, 82 Nev. at 441, 420 P.2d at 857. Had the legislature, in enacting NRS 48.095, intended culpable to denote simple legal responsibility, without regard to fault, we think it would have expressed its intention in unequivocal terms. Additionally, it seems to us that the policy considerations which underlie NRS 48.095 are less compelling in the situation presented here than in the typical negligence case. Where the plaintiff has been injured by a defect in a sidewalk, for example, it may be realistic to suppose that the potential defendant will avoid making repairs, fearing that they might be construed as an admission of fault. But this assumption is not valid where the defect is in a product manufactured by the thousands. In such a case, it is manifestly unrealistic to suggest that [the] producer will forego making improvements in its product, and risk innumerable additional lawsuits and the attendant adverse effect upon its public image, simply because evidence of ... such improvement may be admitted in an action founded on strict liability for recovery on an injury that preceded the improvement. Ault, 528 P.2d at 1152. Accordingly, while decisions on the subject are by no means unanimous, we believe the better rule is to allow admission of post-accident remedial measures in an action based upon strict liability. See, e.g., Schelbauer, 673 P.2d at 746-48 (post-accident warning); Siruta v. Hesston Corp., 232 Kan. 654, 659 P.2d 799, 809 (1983) (design change); D.L. by Friederichs v. Huebner, 110 Wis.2d 581, 329 N.W.2d 890, 903-05 (1983) (design change and warning); Caldwell v. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd., 648 P.2d 519, 525 (Wyo. 1982) (design change); Caprara v. Chrysler Corp., 52 N.Y.2d 114, 436 N.Y.S.2d 251, 257, 417 N.E.2d 545, 551 (1981) (design change); Robbins v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'n, 552 F.2d 788, 793 (8th Cir.1977) (warning); Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., 249 N.W.2d 251, 257 n. 7 (S.D. 1976) (design change); Ault, 528 P.2d 1148 (design change). [7] Nothing in our decision in Jacobson, supra, is to the contrary. There, the plaintiff's case went to the jury on theories of strict liability and negligence. Application of NRS 48.095 was therefore appropriate. It was unnecessary for us to decide whether the statute should also apply to the strict liability claim, because we determined that the evidence in question was admissible in any event under the feasibility exception of NRS 48.095(2). 100 Nev. at 231, 679 P.2d at 255. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the post-accident warnings issued by appellants. [8]