House: Tort bill debated sharply


A bill that would dramatically change how courts consider negligence lawsuits drew sharp debate Wednesday night.

The bill would alter a part of the state tort law that says a person cannot collect any money if they contribute in any way to their injury. The bill would replace that doctrine that allows civil courts to consider the degree to which a person was at fault for his or her own injury. Any judgements awarded would be reduced by that factor.

Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat and a sponsor of the bill said a friend of his son's rode home as a passenger in a car driven by an intoxicated person. A car wreck killed the passenger.

"Because he got in the car with him...his family never got a dime," Glazier said. That is unfair. That is fundamentally unfair to every citizen in the state."

Opponents said the bill was an effort to cater to plaintiff's lawyers and that the change is unnecessary. The law could raise insurance rates, opponents said.

"This House has voted this bill down every time since 1983," said Rep. Jim Crawford, an Oxford Democrat.

The bill passed a key vote 67 to 50. It will have to be voted on again before it goes to the Senate.

Update: Later in the session, Rep. Johnathan Rhyne Jr., a Lincolnton Republican, withdrew his objection to taking the final vote on the bill Wednesday. Rhyne said he changed his mind because Glazier agreed to work on some of the oppositions' concerns as it moved through the Senate.

The bill cleared the House 73 to 42 and moves to the Senate.

You must be logged in to post a comment on this blog. If you already have an N&O online user account, click here to log in. Otherwise, click here to register (it's free!).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Re: House: Tort bill debated sharply

In NC, if a WalMart truck hits you and is 99% at fault and the jury determines that you were slightly at fault, say 1%, then you don't get a penny. It doesn't matter if you were paralyzed from the neck down, you lose.

This is an archaic law, well-loved by AIG and other insurance companies, that only exists in NC and 2 or 3 other states. Every other state has done away with it. Even South Carolina has done away with it, and when your laws are more primitive than South Carolina, you've got a problem.

The insurance industry has a nice tight grip on the NC Legislature. I guess you have to hang around the bathrooms of high-end Glenwood South restaurants to see how the real "debate" happens. Interesting to read the other comments to this article. It's always amazing to me to see individuals fighting for the rights of big business and to diminish their own right to justice. I guess its just a different mindset.

Re: House: Tort bill debated sharply

I always love a body of lawyers who get a chance to vote on items that will make lawyers richer! What this politician was really saying was that " Because he got in a car with him... his lawyer was not able to gain a 25% portion of a lawsuit"

Re: House: Tort bill debated sharply

"Because he got in the car with him...his family never got a dime," Glazier said. That is unfair. That is fundamentally unfair to every citizen in the state."

I don't think that is unfair if he knowingly got in a car with an intoxicated driver.