So how is this relevant to “tort reform” and the pending legislation called Senate Bill 33 in the North Carolina House? Well, this law, proposed by Rep. Johnathan Rhyne (R- Lincolnton), takes away an essential ingredient of Liberty of the people of North Carolina- The right to a jury trial.

Rep. Rhyne’s bill says that when a citizen is hurt or killed by a negligent emergency room physician, or nurse, or hospital worker, that injured person has no right to sue for negligence. Further, the bill says that when a citizen of North Carolina is injured or killed by a defective drug manufactured ANYWHERE in the world, that citizen can not sue the manufacturer if the drug has been “approved” by a state or federal agency. Taking away the “right to redress” or “the right to sue” is the same as depriving someone the right to a jury trial. If you can’t sue, you can’t get a jury. The doors to the court house are closed to these people.

The Halifax resolves speciically address the right to trial by jury. In the Resolves the authors talk about the King seizing “Ships belonging to America” which “are declared prizes of War” and that the colonies have been deprived the legal right to get these ships back or enter into a process of determining the legal rights to the ships: “And …the United Colonies and their sincere desire to be reconciled to the mother Country on Constitutional Principles, have procured no mitigation of the aforesaid Wrongs and usurpations and no hopes remain of obtaining redress by those Means alone which have been hitherto tried.”

Rep. Rhyne’s proposed legislation takes us back to the days of being subjugated to the King and the Crown. Of course, one might make the distinction that under Rhyne’s law, the State of North Carolina is not “profiting” from the people. That is true, but Rhyne’s law is even WORSE.

Under Rhyne’s proposals, the State of North Carolina not only denies “obtaining redress” but does so to the financial advantage of international drug companies and for-profit hospitals and corporate physician groups.

This law is a glaring example of “Big Government” taking fundamental liberties of THE PEOPLE and redistributing the spoils of war to anti-liberty, big monied cronies.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

Senate Bill 33 takes away the trial by jury of people injured by negligent doctors and also those hurt or killed by defective drug products. These people are completely deprived of their liberty to hold bad actors accountable for their wrongs.

Why is the NC GOP rolling back our rights to pre-independence days?

Why did certain colonists remain loyal to the King? Scholars say one unifying characteristics of Loyalists to the Crown during the Revolution was this: They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain, often with business ties. Also known as MONEY. 

How much did Rep. Jonathan Rhyne take from Big PHARMA and Medical Lobbyists?

PLEASE: preserve your liberty and rights. Call Anyone on this list and tell them to vote NO to SB33: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlinyCcVT4eGdGZLZU95VTREcW12RXBoLXlKU2paSWc&hl=en#gid=0

The below is from: http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/halifax-resolves

HALIFAX RESOLVES

Excerpted from “Historical Miscellanea: An Early History of North Carolina,” North Carolina Manual, 1991-1992, published biennially by the NC Department of the Secretary of State.

North Carolina, on April 12, 1776, authorized her delegates to the Continental Congress to vote for independence. This was the first official action by a colony calling for independence. The 83 delegates present in Halifax at the Fourth Provincial Congress unanimously adopted the Halifax Resolves, which read as follows:

The Select Committee taking into Consideration the usurpations and violences attempted and committed by the King and Parliament of Britain against America, and the further Measures to be taken for frustrating the same, and for the better defence of this province reported as follows, to wit,

It appears to your Committee that pursuant to the Plan concerted by the British Ministry for subjugating America, the King and Parliament of Great Britain have usurped a Power over the Persons and Properties of the People unlimited and uncontrouled and disregarding their humble Petitions for Peace, Liberty and safety, have made divers Legislative Acts, denouncing War Famine and every Species of Calamity daily employed in destroying the People and committing the most horrid devastations on the Country. That Governors in different Colonies have declared Protection to Slaves who should imbrue their Hands in the Blood of their Masters. That the Ships belonging to America are declared prizes of War and many of them have been violently seized and confiscated in consequence of which multitudes of the people have been destroyed or from easy Circumstances reduced to the most Lamentable distress.

And whereas the moderation hitherto manifested by the United Colonies and their sincere desire to be reconciled to the mother Country on Constitutional Principles, have procured no mitigation of the aforesaid Wrongs and usurpations and no hopes remain of obtaining redress by those Means alone which have been hitherto tried, Your Committee are of Opinion that the house should enter into the following Resolve, to wit

Resolved that the delegates for this Colony in the Continental Congress be impowered to concur with the other delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency, and forming foreign Alliances, resolving to this Colony the Sole, and Exclusive right of forming a Constitution and Laws for this Colony, and of appointing delegates from time to time (under the direction of a general Representation thereof to meet the delegates of the other Colonies for such purposes as shall be hereafter pointed out.

The Halifax Resolves were important not only because they were the first official action calling for independence, but also because they were not unilateral recommendations. They were instead recommendations directed to all the colonies and their delegates assembled at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Virginia followed with her own recommendations soon after the adoption of the Halifax Resolution, and eventually on July 4, the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was signed. William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and John Penn were the delegates from North Carolina who signed the Declaration of Independence.

The legislators who have bought into the corporate lobbyist’s money agenda in Senate Bill 33 would gladly sacrifice the liberty of the citizens at the throne of the new “King”: international pharmaceutical corporations and insurance companies.

This BOLD parts are from the “core values” listed for the “Tea Party Patriots” and serve as an example of Tea Party values. http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx

Core Values of the Tea Party

• Fiscal Responsibility
• Constitutionally Limited Government
• Free Markets

Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Why “tort reform” proposed by the NC legislature is contrary to these values:

Fiscal responsibility emanates from the individual and is embodied by the government which derives its existence from the will of the people. “Tort reform” in the form of arbitrary caps on damages and immunity from certain forms of negligence by certain “classes” of individual (for example, immunity for negligent emergency room doctors) shifts the natural consequences of actions from the wrong doer to the government. Individuals who do harm should be held personally responsible for the full extent of their harm and not shift financial responsibility to government entitlement programs.

“Tort reform” in the form of NC Senate Bill 33, simply redistributes the cost of individual harm from the wrong doer to the tax payer. More specifically, by providing immunity to certain types of negligent physicians, when those physicians cause great harm to individuals, the harmed individual will eventually take tax dollars in the form of entitlement programs such as medicare, social security disability, and medicaid. The harmed citizen will be a drain on our government and our taxes.

Fiscal responsibility demands that the individual causing harm rely on their own resources and insurance converge in a robust free market- not the government to use tax dollars to bail out the negligent.

“Tort reform” is not fiscally responsible.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states’ rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Why “tort reform” proposed by the NC legislature is contrary to these values:

There is no question that our founders believed in, and enshrined with the Constitution, the unalienable right to a jury trial for civil suits, which our Founding Fathers protected through the 7th Amendment to the Constitution after centuries of recognition in British law and Judeo-Christian writings.

Historically, the right to a trial by jury was the basis for “The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms,” which was a document issued to explain why the colonists had initiated armed conflict against Great Britain, and was written by John Dickinson of Virginia based on a draft by Thomas Jefferson.

Dickinson wrote in the Declaration, “Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property…” — Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, enacted July 6, 1775 by the Second Continental Congress

The “tort reform” proposed by the North Carolina legislature fundamentally deprives citizens of the right to a trial by jury in several ways. First, it grants blanket immunity from suit to certain classes of citizens, namely, emergency physicians and emergency room personnel, and corporate producers of pharmaceuticals (drugs). The proposals say, quite plainly, that a citizen injured or killed by any of these privileged groups can not sue and have a jury determine the fairness of their claim.

The Constitution clearly guarantees the right to a trial by jury to all citizens in the 7th Amendment.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

John Adams wrote:

As the Constitution requires that the popular branch of the legislature should have an absolute check, so as to put a peremptory negative upon every act of the government, it requires that the common people, should have as complete a control, as decisive a negative, in every judgment of a court of judicature.

He also wrote, “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

James Madison, the author of the Constitution and the fourth President of the United States, said, “Trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.”

“Tort reform” as proposed in SB33 and other bills curtails the natural right to trial by jury and should be opposed.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government’s interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Why “tort reform” proposed by the NC legislature is contrary to these values:

A free market economy rewards entrepreneurs for their actions that benefit society. The manufacturer who builds a superior product wins in the marketplace, and few would question that manufacturer’s right to reap the rewards of its own ingenuity. This is largely because the manufacturer has, in the effort to succeed, shouldered a risk of failure. It is the marketplace, comprised of ordinary people, rather than the government, which determines whether the manufacturer wins or loses.

If the efficient production of material wealth is all that concerns us, then the marketplace needs no other rewards or penalties. Most will agree, however, that manufacturers should be encouraged to create safe as well as efficient products, for the number of deaths and injuries annually caused by defective products is astronomical. According to the 2003 Annual Report of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, there were 4,509 deaths and 13,690,526 injuries associated with just 15 categories of consumer products during that one-year reporting period. Deaths and injuries caused annually by toxic pharmaceutical products also rival these numbers.

By making manufacturers liable to the people they have injured, the once-revered common law tort system creates an incentive for the manufacturer to build a safer product. Those who advocate more government might suggest that safety can best be engineered from above, by governmental regulation, but true advocates of a free market will agree that it is better to permit the manufacturer to determine how to make its own product safe for consumer use, rather than some government bureaucrat. In exchange for the right to determine the most efficient way to make its products safe, however, a manufacturer must be subject to suit for failure to perform this undertaking.

“Tort reform” as proposed by the NC legislature in SB33 relieves manufacturers of defective products and providers of negligent services from the natural free market consequences of their actions. This creates imbalance in the market and also encourages an increase in governmental regulations.

The free market demands that consumers have a right to recoup their losses through the fundamental right of trial by jury. This provides natural incentives for “good behavior” in the marketplace.

I believe that House Bill 542 may “look” good for business but have the unintended consequence of making North Carolina the WORST place for manufacturing in the entire United States. I’ve inserted a few comments below in [BOLD] brackets.

Rep. Stam, Rep. Weiss, and Rep. Murray:

I am a lawyer, like each of you, and I would like to call to your attention what I think is a major unintended consequence of HB 542. I called each of your offices today to discuss this issue.

HB 542 destroys the right of a NC manufacturer and their insurance company to subrogate on catastrophic losses caused by defective products.This hurts manufacturing, business, and insurance interests in North Carolina.

Please read the below example:

Products Liability Immunity Destroys Business and Insurance Subrogation: HB 542 gives immunity from suit to any company that produces a faulty product that has been “approved for sale” by any State of Federal regulatory agency. This bar would apply to insurance subrogation claims against the original tortfeasor and therefore bars insurance companies and the self-insured from recouping losses caused by faulty products.

EXAMPLE.Power Plant Explosion: A North Carolina power company buys a defective industrial boiler from a Chinese (or any) manufacturing company. This product is “approved” by several state and federal agencies as required by law.” [Does this sound like the Apex Chemical explosion?]

That boiler explodes and spreads toxic ash over a 3 mile radius. The environment is polluted, people are made sick, and the business site is shut down. The NC business itself suffers a $300 Million dollar business and property damage loss and is sued by the State and citizens for the toxic ash injuries. The insurer for the power company (or self-insured company itself) must pay for the business loss, claims of injuries and property loss, but would be prohibited by HB542 from seeking a recovery from the negligent Chinese manufacturer. The State of North Carolina would be prohibited from seeking compensation for the loss to the environment and the toxic clean up costs. This will increase the cost of insurance for business and the State and possibly force insurers to stop insuring for loss from product defect.

HB542 uses the following definitions: [See page 8 of HB542] ” (1) “Claimant” means a person or other entity asserting a claim”

“Product liability action” includes any action brought for or on account of personal injury, death or property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formulation, development of standards, preparation, processing, assembly, testing, listing, certifying, warning, instructing, marketing, selling, advertising, packaging, or labeling of any product.” (Emphasis added)

“No manufacturer or sellershall be held liable in any product liability action if any one of the following apply:”

Under this very simple language above, businesses that suffer catastrophic losses due to product defects will NOT be able to recoup those loses.

Moreover, what will be the effect on Business Insurance Policies? A standard loss policy would have language like the following:

“If we pay a claim under your policy, we will take over your right to recover that amount from any other person or organization. You agree to cooperate with us and not do anything that will interfere with our chances of recovery”.

Insurers would be subrogated to the right of the North Carolina company. Because subrogation is “the substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand, or right, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or securities,” the North Carolina Company would have no right to recover under HB542 and thus the insurance company would be subrogated to nothing.

North Carolina will be the ONLY state in the nation with such a law.

This raises many difficult questions:

1. Will insurance companies issue large commercial policies to North Carolina manufacturers know there will be no right to subrogate in failed products cases? Can businesses operate without this insurance?
2. Will North Carolina manufacturers receive insurance rate increases due to the higher cost risk for North Carolina claims?
3. Will manufacturers avoid locating in North Carolina because they will not be protected from defective products they purchase for their business?
4. Will insurance products for consumers be impacted by the lack of subrogation for faulty manufacturing? Will home owner insurance rates increase due to the number of fires caused by defective products where there will be no subrogatable interest for the insurance company?
5. Why would a manufacturer choose North Carolina over 49 other states knowing that it had no protections from faulty products within its own facility?

I ask that you stop HB542 before it further erodes North Carolina’s business economy.

Chris Nichols

________________________________

(update) 

A non-hypotehtical Example of Products Liability Subrogation In Insurance

Here is an excellent example of how subrogation works in the context of product liability claims. This is a blog post from Cozen O’Conner, a national law firm that helps insurance companies recover funds from manufacturers of defective produts when those products cause damage which is insured. Here is a link to their full blog post. Lasko Recalls 4.8 Million Box Fans

The case involved a massive barn fire at a breeding farm in Hondo, New Mexico. Six world class race horse breeding stallions were killed in the fire and the barn itself was totaled. Cozen O’Connor represented over sixty sophisticated horsemen clients who had ownership interests in the stallions, and their insurers. The insurers for the horses and the barn went to great lengths to preserve the fire scene, and as a direct result of their diligence the experts were able to examine each electrical device in the barn and identify the fatal flaw in the Lasko fan motor.

On March 24th (long after the fire) the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of 4.8 million Lasko box fans. The recall notice reports “an electrical failure in the fan’s motor poses a fire hazard to consumers.” The CPSC cites a “barn fire resulting in extensive property damage” as a basis for the recall.

If this fire had occurred in North Carolina under House Bill 542, the lawyers at Cozen O’Conner would have been barred from seeking recovery from Lasko. The insurer would have paid out millions and not been reimbursed by the negligent manufacturer of the fan. And who would absorb the cost of the unreimbursed expenses? Anyone who buys insurance.

_______________________________________

Hopefully this will make a difference. This bill is not just about people injured by defective products, but also business.

This is an actual photo of the Apex, NC plant explosion at a chemical storage facility.