the Superior Court followed the example of Ault to diverge from the federal model by refusing to extend the prohibition against evidence of subsequent remedial measures to strict liability claims, concluding that the logic underlying application of the rule of exclusion in the negligence setting is inconsistent with strict liability theory. As the Superior Court majority noted, the Ault rationale is grounded initially in the theoretical distinction between negligence and strict products liability, principally, the precept that negligence turns upon conduct, whereas the elements of a strict products liability claim focus upon the condition of the product at issue. See generally Ault, 117 Cal.Rptr. 812, 528 P.2d at 1152; Jeep Corp. v. Murray, 101 Nev. 640, 708 P.2d 297, 802 (1985) (<HOLDING>). While courts applying the Ault rationale
holding that evidence of subsequent measures was admissible to show the feasibility of a design change holding that evidence of subsequent remedial conduct to disprove a plaintiffs comparative fault is inadmissible holding that any error in the exclusion of evidence is cured by the subsequent admission of the evidence holding defendant culpable for the natural and probable consequence   of his conduct holding that the bar against the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures comes into play only where negligence or other culpable conduct is alleged