Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
The Senate assembled at 12:00 Noon, the hour to which it stood adjourned, and was called to order by the PRESIDENT.
A quorum being present, the proceedings were opened with a devotion by the Chaplain as follows:
Beloved, hear the prophet Isaiah to his people (11:34):
"He shall not judge by what HIS eyes see, or decide by what HIS ears hear; but with righteousness He shall judge."
Let us pray.
Lord God, our Heavenly Father, we believe that it was by Your "advice and consent" that our fellow citizens have called us to the most honorable...and difficult task of state Senators.
We are aware of our tremendous responsibilities as we represent our people. We call upon You to help lift us up so that we can make a difference - today and always!
Amen.
The PRESIDENT called for Petitions, Memorials, Presentments of Grand Juries and such like papers.
The following appointments were transmitted by the Honorable Mark C. Sanford:
Initial Appointment, John De La Howe School Board of Trustees, with term to commence April 1, 2003, and to expire April 1, 2008
At-Large:
Derrick L. Williams, Collins and Lacy, P. C., P. O. Box 12487, Columbia, S.C. 29211 VICE Alton Loftis
Referred to the Committee on Education.
Initial Appointment, South Carolina Commission for the Blind, with term to commence May 19, 2002, and to expire May 19, 2006
1st Congressional District:
Charlene M. Grice, M. D., 834 Pitt Street, Mt. Pleasant, S.C. 29464 VICE William Parnell Diggs (vacated)
Referred to the General Committee.
Reappointment, State Advisory Committee on Educational Requirements for Local Government, with term to commence June 30, 2005, and to expire June 30, 2009
Municipalities:
Stephen G. Riley, Town of Hilton Head Island, One Town Center Court, Hilton Head Island, S.C. 29928
Referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Initial Appointment, Board of Trustees of the Children's Trust Fund of South Carolina, with term to commence June 30, 2004, and to expire June 30, 2008
At-Large:
Justin Strickland, 623 Brandon Court, Lexington, S.C. 29072 VICE Stephen John Taylor
Referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Senator CAMPSEN introduced Dr. Louis Costa of Charleston, S.C., Doctor of the Day.
Senator LEVENTIS rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.
Senator KNOTTS rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.
Thank you, Mr. PRESIDENT,
If I could have your attention just a few minutes, I want to tell you about an event that has happened. It is not only of interest to me, but other Senators within this body as well.
We are on a subject called Tort Reform. There is no doubt that there is some type of Tort Reform that needs to be progressed. But there is a procedure in this body and across the Hall that you must adhere to. You must also understand that, whenever you come to the Legislature on how to attain a Bill being passed or getting to a stage where it can be voted on. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it is an issue that has to be resolved. The way the Bills are resolved in here are supposed to be in the best interest of the general public and of all parties involved. This is what you call compromise -- the art of compromise. It does not take very long to understand the art of compromise in this body.
Yesterday, our Governor did not choose the art of compromise which, he has not proven since he has been the Governor of this State. I do not think he knows what compromise is, let alone how to spell it. When I have an issue that pertains to the Governor, I call down to his office to schedule an appointment. And, when I cannot see the Governor on an issue that I know concerns him, I usually talk with someone in his office. That is the way you do things. But, yesterday or over the weekend, our Governor chose the other way. That is what he thinks is accomplishing something. I have served under four governors; I served under Carroll Campbell, David Beasley, Jim Hodges and now under Governor Mark Sanford. The first three governors that I served under knew how to compromise. They knew how to gain votes up here and how to put across their voice. This Governor thinks that, because it is his idea, you are supposed to jump in line and you are supposed to be a "puppet." As most of you know, I am no puppet -- not for this Governor or any other governor.
As many of you have seen, last year on the budget the original idea of supporting the Governor and putting the money back in to pay the deficit came from four freshman Senators, non-partisan. Being freshmen, our amendment had some problems that the Senator from Charleston pointed out. It did not meet the criteria that the Senate needed and was later written, supported and passed to pay the deficit off that had been owed for over three years. A former Senator from Charleston, a Senator from Darlington, a Senator from Kershaw and I did it because it was the right thing to do. We were told that other members were glad that we had brought it up. The next thing I knew, we had support from the leadership that understood that it was the right thing to do. As a result, it was passed. Frankly, it was by accident this was passed. This was not due to the Governor's communication. I do not know of anything else this Governor has accomplished since he has been Governor.
He has been a little hot because he held a news conference yesterday in my district and named me by name as well as other Senators in this body. In addition, he named the other Senator in my district. He also sent out an e-mail and named us again saying that we were against Tort Reform. He also developed a phone bank. I want to thank the Governor for sending out the phone bank. Despite all the phone banks in my district, I have received praise and positive responses in my district for not standing up and bowing to him. The people want Senators that serve in the Senate to represent the people. Many of you know that I try my best to do just that. They do not have a lobbyist to represent them here in the State House lobby. Not one of us in this body has a note from a lobbyist on behalf of the people. They have to come to the State House themselves to be heard by the Senators. They do not have a coalition of lobbyists that is always looking for Bills that affect them. It is up to us. We are the lobbyists for the people. We have to balance out what the lobbyists in the lobby are telling us is in their best interest and whether it is in the best interest of the people.
You know, for a Governor to hold a press conference, send out an e-mail and set up a phone bank in the various districts of Senators he is naming, is not the type of communication that our former Governors -- Carroll Campbell, David Beasley, and Jim Hodges -- would have done. All three of those Governors had a democratic controlled Senate and a Republican controlled House. This Governor has a better deal than that. He has a Republican controlled Senate and House and he needs to understand that his job is not as hard as he may think it to be, unless he just does not want this body to accomplish anything that he wants.
I have noticed that in Washington he did not accomplish very much. Now that he has been Governor for two years, he has not accomplished very much. He could very easily accomplish great things if he would just extend a hand out and ask the people of this body to help him. We are here waiting to help him. We want to help him, but due to the lack of communication we cannot tell where he is on any issue.
I was on his side regarding the Seat Belt Bill. Now, it is through the House and the Governor does not know whether or not he is going to sign it. Well, that is fine; I will win on that one because it is the peoples' choice. That is my position. It has been our choice all along. I did not see him going out and holding a news conference against us or you all for pushing the Bill. All I am asking is that, before you go out and use these tactics against members of this body, naming them, thinking that you are going to put pressure on them in that form, you need to try a little bit of communication in expressing your views. Go through the leadership and let this body know what we are doing. The last thing that the Governor did was to bring two pigs from people in Lexington County -- that office deserves respect. If we are going to begin using tactics like that, I am going to tell you what we did in Lexington; we turned those pigs into bacon. I did not bring them here to mess up this building, but I do have bacon for our Governor. This shows what we think about his tactics against the other Senators and the Senators from Lexington County that were named yesterday. I do not mind him naming me. I can take the heat and I can take the praise. Yesterday, I took the praise. I hope that he understands that soon, in order to get things done in this State, there needs to be a little bit of communication and a lot less rhetoric. That will do a great deal more in getting things accomplished in this body.
Thank you.
On motion of Senator FORD, with unanimous consent, Senator KNOTTS' remarks were ordered printed in the Journal.
Senator HAWKINS rose for an Expression of Personal Interest.
After the Senator from Lexington talked about his experience with the Governor coming to his town, I wanted to share with you my experience. We were glad to have him in Spartanburg. He came up and we had a press conference at Johnson's Hardware Store and I went out there and joined him and heard what he had to say about me and about my position. There were no four-letter words used that I know of. Unlike my dear friend from Lexington, I don't take it personally that the Governor came to town, and I think it's totally within his right to go wherever he wants to and advocate whatever Bills he wants and believes in, and that's fine. The concern that I have is, very sincerely and seriously, that there's been some kind of shading of the actual real truth in some of this and I place most of that blame on the Chamber of Commerce.
Last Thursday, or maybe it was Wednesday, the Chamber of Commerce sent an e-mail to all of their members and they said that about seven Senators had changed their positions and that we were for abolishing joint and several liability and then we changed our positions -- we backtracked. They essentially called us liars. And so I think all of us went out to the lobby and on a one-on-one basis shared our concerns about that e-mail with such luminaries of the lobby that work for the chamber. We went out there and talked with these various luminaries of the lobby and we expressed our concerns that they had basically said we had lied about our position on this Bill.
What I got in response was that they would issue a retraction. They did subsequently issue a retraction. I would consider it to be a weak, tepid and dishwatery retraction, but it was a retraction, nonetheless. I guess I was lucky to get that at all from the chamber. So they sent that out and then the chamber came up to Spartanburg with the Governor. I don't know -- they might have ridden together. When I passed the Governor's car, he had the other people from the chamber, Mr. Fields and Mr. Hunter Howard and some other fellow with no hair -- I forget his name. They were in the same car together -- maybe they flew together -- I don't know how they got there. I'm not worried about that. The Governor then gave his press conference and he said he was for tort reform and he's pretty much said that all along, and I respect that.
But the way that this thing has been shaded to the public by the use of the bully pulpit of the Governor's Office, I think is unfair. It is unfair to some of the Governor's friends in the Senate who have been helping him with his agenda and who will continue to help him with his agenda -- but it was a bit of an unfair characterization. Number one, to say that, because I don't support abolishing joint and several liability, the Governor uses his bully pulpit to suggest that I'm a roadblock to any kind of tort reform. And so, unfortunately, that's the message that gets out to my constituents, that most of them will never see or hear what I am saying right now, as you know. You can never undo that harm once it's been done. So, that's a tactic that I really think is not very becoming of Governor Sanford and I wish that, if he's going to criticize, he would criticize honestly and talk about the areas where he thinks I've done wrong and say so, but don't misinterpret my position -- don't misrepresent my position to my constituents.
I am sure they are pleased with themselves. I know the chamber is really flexing its muscles and feels its power and they're going to roll over anyone who doesn't go along with 100% of what they want. And even though I support 90% of what the chamber wants, apparently that's not enough. They want 100% and I'm sorry I can't give them 100%, so sue me. No pun intended. But seriously, I think that some of the tactics the chamber is using are really unbecoming and I think the way the Governor has spun this, is unbecoming of him and I hope they'll reconsider what they're doing. I don't mind these phone calls. I don't know about the money. I'm sure, Senator from Sumter, that it's all being done on the up and up. Let's just be honest. I know that those in the lobby that are pushing this Bill are so passionate about it - you know, I don't know if you've heard the chamber say that they've issued a manifesto and they've said, "We will not accept anything less than the abolition of joint and several liability." They have stapled it on the door of the cathedral.
Senator SETZLER: Talking about these two e-mails -- and, of course, they did send out a corrective e-mail, as you are well aware, after the fact. Individually, have you gotten a letter of apology for impugning our integrity and the position we took?
Senator HAWKINS: What I got, in fairness to Mr. Howard -- he came by my office and he handwrote on a piece of paper that he was sorry that this had happened. So he did write an apology. Did he not do that to you?
Senator SETZLER: Oh, he did come by your office?
Senator HAWKINS: He did come by my office and write that note. I'm sure he's on his way to yours, as we speak. I really would just like to see this debate be about what it's really about, which is the actual issue. When you look at joint and several liability, we're really not that far apart. You've got those on one end that are for the complete abolition of joint and several liability and then you've got those on the other end that don't want to see any change to the current law. And somewhere in there is a compromise that's fair and workable. But the chamber says, "No, we don't want any compromise." And the chamber's got some friends in here that are saying, "No compromise, no compromise." So when you take that kind of strident position -- I'm sorry, I don't want the chamber free and at will to write all of the laws for the State without any kind of checks and balances. I don't want that. I don't think that's good any more than I think that having the Trial Lawyers Association writing all of the laws would be necessarily good for the State. We, as Senators and House members, have the job of sorting through what's best.
And you know, I get personally attacked, my character gets impugned by some of these folks because I'm an attorney and because I practice law and because I'm proud to represent injured people. So when I look at the joint and several liability question, I see yes, we need reform; we need some change. I'm willing to take steps to make it a better law, but I see areas where, if you abolish joint and several liability, you could have severe injustices at work. I don't know how many of you heard of the Carolina Investors scandal in the Upstate, but it was a tragic situation where lots of families, working class families, put most or all of their life savings into Carolina Investors. They entrusted their money, and let's just say that, in a Carolina Investors type situation, we abolish joint and several liability and let's say you just have one or two defendants who may be 30 or 40 percent at fault and they're the ones with the money. Why isn't it fair that they pay for all or as much of the plaintiff's damages as possible? These family members that lost their money? Who are we more concerned with protecting - the wrongdoer who may be only be 30 or 40 percent at fault? I mean, I don't know how you can only be 30 or 40 percent at fault - that's like being only 30 or 40 percent pregnant. You either are pregnant or you aren't. If someone is 30 or 40 percent at fault, then they have their fingers enough into the cookie jar that they ought to have to pay out and pay for all of the plaintiff's damages. These families lost all of their life savings -- some of them did. Why should we pass laws that would shield the wrongdoers from paying the full amount to cover what the plaintiff lost? Why have we become so anti the person that actually gets hurt or injured?
Everybody thinks about lawyers. I get this all the time -- they think, "Well, you're just doing this to protect your fee and enrich your own pocketbook." It's so funny that we have so many other Bills that we vote on and we all vote on things in here. We've got people in here that are doctors and businessmen. I never hear the chamber objecting because a business person votes in favor of tort reform. Somehow that's not a conflict. Of course that's not a conflict for a business person to vote on tort reform. I even had one person e-mail me and they said, "Since you're a lawyer, we think it's a conflict for you to vote on tort reform unless you vote for tort reform because you're a lawyer." What kind of hypocritical asinine statement is something like that?
So I get personally attacked. Senator from Lexington, this issue for me is more of an exquisite dilemma than it is for you because I practice law. So everything I do, people scrutinize. "Well, he's doing that because he's a lawyer protecting this or protecting that." I voted for the Medical Malpractice Bill. I voted for the caps on the damages. I was on the subcommittee under the Senator from Pickens' excellent leadership, who by the way held three subcommittee meetings. And although he and I had some differences, he always allowed for the dissenting and the minority view, and I appreciate that. But, Senator, other than trying to make the Bill better, I think you would attest that I was for moving the Bill forward and trying to get this debate on the floor. And so I've got some trial lawyers that are actually angry at me because I haven't gone all the other way. So I always say, Senator from Greenville, if I do everything just right on this, I'll make everybody mad and have no friends at the end of the day. As long as I can look at myself in the mirror and say I've done the right thing, I'm fine.
I've got constituents who believe so passionately that they would take the time to come down here -- they must feel very passionate about it. They have to understand that I am doing the best I can with this. I have true beliefs in my heart about why joint and several liability shouldn't be abolished, but that I'm 90% in favor of this Bill and I'm going to do everything that I can to see to it that we get it passed -- that we get something that's good and fair and right and that doesn't roll over people's rights.
Senator SHEHEEN: Would the Senator yield for a question? Senator, I tell you one of the things that just disturbs me is that, instead of the dialogue going on in this Chamber as I think the founders of our country and our State planned, the dialogue now appears to be from a special interest group or the Governor to attempt to put pressure on us to vote in ways that we don't think are right. Don't you think it's better and we have a better result when we all vote our honestly held beliefs, and can't you have a differing honestly held belief on this subject?
Senator HAWKINS: You can have different beliefs, but I also respect the Governor's right to use the bully pulpit of his office to advocate for what he believes. I didn't take it personally when he came to Spartanburg yesterday. That's his right to do that and I have no problem with him doing that. I don't have a problem trying to stand toe to toe with him and saying, "Here's why I respectfully disagree with you on one little part of this Bill."
The problem I have with what the Governor did, that I think was unfair to some others and me, is to paint us as being obstructionists on this Bill. I think that, when the Governor did that, you lose a little something of yourself when you try to make those cuts at other people's expense. What am I? That message will never get out - what I'm saying now, what you're saying now. His message -- he's very effective at getting it out, and I just wish that, especially with his friends -- the people that try to help him on most of his agenda -- he would at least be fair and accurate on how he deals with us. Maybe that's not a concern for him. I don't know. I'm not personally close with the man. I don't know him that well at all.
Senator SHEHEEN: Would you agree that we could pass approximately 90% of this Bill out today? It seems to be that everyone is for about 90% of this Bill at this point.
Senator HAWKINS: I'm not sure, Senator. The chamber has put itself in such a position that, if we agree to vote to abolish joint and several liability, they would come back and they'd want five to ten more things. Their position will always move and always become more and more extreme because they think they smell blood in the water and they think now they are going to go out and declare certain Senators pro-business and other Senators not pro-business over this one vote of whether to abolish joint and several liability.
Senator SHEHEEN: And if you don't do what you're told, then you're anti-business -- is that what it works out to be?
Senator HAWKINS: No, the way I construe their policy is - I got a letter today from some lady named Kathy -- I don't remember her name. She wrote a letter saying, as much, that, if you don't vote to abolish joint and several liability, you're anti-business.
Thanks for listening to me. I appreciate it.
On motion of Senator KNOTTS, with unanimous consent, Senator HAWKINS' remarks were ordered printed in the Journal.
S. 296 (Word version) -- Senators Martin, Mescher and O'Dell: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-1-146 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON WHO IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT CRIME MUST SURRENDER HIS DRIVER'S LICENSE OR SPECIAL IDENTIFICATION CARD TO THE COURT WHICH MUST TRANSMIT IT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES TOGETHER WITH NOTICE OF THE CRIME, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DRIVER'S LICENSE OR SPECIAL IDENTIFICATION CARD IS CONSIDERED REVOKED AND MUST NOT BE RETURNED TO THE PERSON UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; BY ADDING 56-1-148 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT CRIME MUST HAVE A SPECIAL CODE AFFIXED TO HIS DRIVER'S LICENSE OR SPECIAL IDENTIFICATION CARD THAT IDENTIFIES THE PERSON AS HAVING BEEN CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT CRIME, TO PROVIDE A FEE TO BE CHARGED FOR AFFIXING THE CODE AND FOR ITS DISTRIBUTION, TO PROVIDE THE INTENT FOR AFFIXING THE CODE, AND TO PROVIDE A PROCESS FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE CODE; TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-80, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE CONTENTS OF A DRIVER'S LICENSE APPLICATION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE APPLICATION MUST CONTAIN A STATEMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT CRIME AND, IF SO, THE CRIME, AND MUST CONTAIN A LIST OF ALL VIOLENT CRIMES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-3350, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL IDENTIFICATION CARD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL IDENTIFICATION CARD MUST CONTAIN A STATEMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT CRIME AND, IF SO, THE CRIME, AND MUST CONTAIN A LIST OF ALL VIOLENT CRIMES.
On motion of Senator RICHARDSON, with unanimous consent, the name of Senator RICHARDSON was added as a co-sponsor of S. 296.
S. 563 (Word version) -- Senator Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 8-13-1308, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FILING CAMPAIGN REPORTS BY CANDIDATES AND COMMITTEES, SO AS TO, IN THE CASE OF A CANDIDATE FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE, REDUCE FROM TEN THOUSAND TO THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS, AND, IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER OFFICE, REDUCE FROM TWO TO ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT FOR REQUIRING A COMMITTEE TO FILE A CAMPAIGN REPORT LISTING EXPENDITURES.
On motion of Senator LEVENTIS, with unanimous consent, the name of Senator LEVENTIS was added as a co-sponsor of S. 563.
S. 111 (Word version) -- Senators Fair, Bryant, Grooms, Thomas, Verdin and Hayes: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF GOVERNMENT, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5, SO AS TO ENACT THE "RIGHT TO LIFE ACT OF SOUTH CAROLINA" WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION VEST AT FERTILIZATION.
On motion of Senator HAYES, with unanimous consent, the name of Senator HAYES was added as a co-sponsor of S. 111.
The following were introduced:
S. 592 (Word version) -- Senator Moore: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 59-111-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO FREE COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY, OR TECHNICAL COLLEGE TUITION FOR CERTAIN VETERANS' CHILDREN, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A CHILD OF CERTAIN ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED SERVICES ALSO QUALIFY FOR FREE TUITION.
l:\council\bills\gjk\20309sd05.doc
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.
S. 593 (Word version) -- Senators Leatherman, J. Verne Smith, Bryant, Cromer, Hayes, Knotts, Ritchie, Grooms, Peeler, Richardson, Verdin, O'Dell, Hawkins, Fair, Courson, Alexander, Martin and Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-545 SO AS TO PHASE IN OVER FOUR TAXABLE YEARS BEGINNING IN 2006 A MAXIMUM FIVE PERCENT STATE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX ON SOUTH CAROLINA TAXABLE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ACTIVE TRADE OR BUSINESS INCOME OF A PASS-THROUGH BUSINESS, TO DEFINE PASS-THROUGH BUSINESSES AS SOLE PROPRIETORSHIPS, PARTNERSHIPS, "S" CORPORATIONS, AND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES WHEN SUCH COMPANIES ARE TAXED AS SOLE PROPRIETORSHIPS, PARTNERSHIPS, AND "S" CORPORATIONS AND TO DEFINE ACTIVE TRADE OR BUSINESS INCOME OR LOSS.
l:\council\bills\gjk\20310htc05.doc
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Finance.
S. 594 (Word version) -- Senators Martin and Alexander: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-430(B)(8) OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO BEAR HUNTING AND CERTAIN UNLAWFUL ACTS REGARDING THE HUNTING OR TAKING OF BEARS, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS LAWFUL TO PURSUE BEAR WITH DOGS WITH A PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT SO LONG AS NO BEARS ARE TAKEN OR KILLED DURING THIS ACTIVITY.
l:\s-res\lam\010bear.mrh.doc
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry.
S. 595 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler and Hutto: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 40-51-20, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF PODIATRISTS, SO AS TO REVISE THE DEFINITION OF "PODIATRY" AND TO DEFINE "PRACTICE OF PODIATRY".
l:\council\bills\nbd\11551ac05.doc
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.
S. 596 (Word version) -- Senator Sheheen: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-7-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE USE OF THE UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKET BY ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT ALLOWS A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO AUTOMATE THE ISSUANCE OF A UNIFORM TICKET IF APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AND PROVIDE THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY UTILIZE COMPUTERS AND OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES TO ISSUE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATIONS AND STORE INFORMATION RESULTING FROM THE ISSUANCE OF A TRAFFIC CITATION IF THIS METHOD OF ISSUING A CITATION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-7-30, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PRINTING, ORDERING, AND PURCHASING OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKETS, AND THE FILING OF THE VARIOUS COPIES OF THE TICKET WITH THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THE PROCEDURE THAT A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT ISSUES UNIFORM TRAFFIC TICKETS IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT MUST DISTRIBUTE COPIES OF THE TICKET TO VARIOUS ENTITIES.
l:\council\bills\ms\7348cm05.doc
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Transportation.
S. 597 (Word version) -- Senator Ryberg: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-19-480, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER AND SURRENDER OF MOTOR VEHICLE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE, LICENSE PLATES, REGISTRATION CARDS, AND MANUFACTURERS' SERIAL PLATES OF VEHICLES SOLD AS SALVAGE, ABANDONED, SCRAPPED, OR DESTROYED, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CHANGE, TO DELETE THE TERM "SALVAGED" AND REPLACE IT WITH THE TERM "TOTAL LOSS CLAIM", TO PROVIDE THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL LOSS CLAIM MUST BE RECORDED ON THE TITLE NEXT TO THE BRAND OF "TOTAL LOSS CLAIM", AND TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT A "VEHICLE DECLARED TO BE A TOTAL LOSS" IS SYNONYMOUS TO A "WRECKED VEHICLE" AND A "SALVAGE VEHICLE".
l:\council\bills\swb\6381cm05.doc
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Transportation.
S. 598 (Word version) -- Senators Sheheen and Lourie: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 930 OF 1970, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SCHOOL TRUSTEES FOR KERSHAW COUNTY, SO AS TO REVISE THE ELECTION DISTRICTS FROM WHICH THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ARE ELECTED; AND TO DESIGNATE A MAP NUMBER FOR THE MAP ON WHICH THESE LINES OF THE ELECTION DISTRICTS FOR TRUSTEES ARE DELINEATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD.
l:\council\bills\dka\3238dw05.doc
Read the first time and ordered placed on the Local and Uncontested Calendar.
S. 599 (Word version) -- Senator Moore: A SENATE RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING WITH GRATITUDE STEPHEN FELKER, CEO AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF AVONDALE MILLS IN AIKEN COUNTY, ON HIS TIRELESS AND COMPASSIONATE EFFORTS TO RESTORE THE PLANT'S OPERATION IN THE WAKE OF THE CATASTROPHIC TRAIN COLLISION JANUARY 9, 2005, AND TO RECLAIM THE FUTURE OF GRANITEVILLE.
l:\council\bills\bbm\10707mm05.doc
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 600 (Word version) -- Senators Lourie, Alexander, Anderson, Bryant, Campsen, Cleary, Courson, Cromer, Drummond, Elliott, Fair, Ford, Gregory, Grooms, Hawkins, Hayes, Hutto, Jackson, Knotts, Land, Leatherman, Leventis, Malloy, Martin, Matthews, McConnell, McGill, Mescher, Moore, O'Dell, Patterson, Peeler, Pinckney, Rankin, Reese, Richardson, Ritchie, Ryberg, Scott, Setzler, Sheheen, Short, J. Verne Smith, Thomas, Verdin and Williams: A SENATE RESOLUTION TO CONGRATULATE THE MEMBERS OF BETH SHALOM SYNAGOGUE IN COLUMBIA AS THEY CELEBRATE THE ONE HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SYNAGOGUE THIS YEAR AND TO COMMEND THIS WONDERFUL PLACE OF WORSHIP AND PEACE FOR ITS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF ITS MEMBERS AND FOR ITS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
l:\council\bills\gjk\20312sd05.doc
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
S. 601 (Word version) -- Senator Fair: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 14, TITLE 24 SO AS TO CREATE THE SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND PARDON AUTHORITY, TO PROVIDE FOR ITS MEMBERS, POWERS, AND DUTIES, INCLUDING TO PROVIDE THAT DECISIONS OF THE BOARD MUST BE RENDERED BY FIVE-MEMBER PANELS AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS; TO AMEND SECTION 1-3-240, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO REMOVAL OF GUBERNATORIAL APPOINTEES FROM OFFICE, SO AS TO CONFORM THIS SECTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; TO AMEND SUBARTICLE 17, ARTICLE 30, CHAPTER 7, TITLE 20, RELATING TO JUVENILE PAROLE AND AFTER CARE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND PARDON AUTHORITY SHALL DETERMINE THE RELEASE OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS WHO HAVE COMMITTED CLASS A, B, C, AND D FELONIES AND OTHER ENUMERATED OFFENSES, TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE SHALL DETERMINE THE RELEASE OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED STATUS OFFENSES, AND OTHER OFFENSES NOT UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA PARDON AND PAROLE AUTHORITY, AND TO TRANSFER THE REMAINING POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE JUVENILE PAROLE BOARD TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND PARDON AUTHORITY; TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-7-6910, 20-7-7810, 20-7-7815, BOTH AS AMENDED, AND 20-7-8025, ALL RELATING TO PROVISIONS CONTAINING REFERENCES TO THE JUVENILE PAROLE BOARD, SO AS TO CONFORM THESE PROVISIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; TO ADD SECTION 20-7-8522 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT JUVENILE RECORDS MUST BE PROVIDED TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND PARDON AUTHORITY FOR CONSIDERATION OF RELEASE FOR AN ADULT OFFENDER WHO HAD A JUVENILE RECORD; TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 21, TITLE 24, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES, SO AS TO TRANSFER THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THIS BOARD TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA PAROLE AND PARDON AUTHORITY; TO AMEND ARTICLES 7 AND 11 OF CHAPTER 21, TITLE 24, RELATING TO PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PAROLE AND PARDON, SO AS TO CONFORM PROVISIONS IN THESE ARTICLES TO THE PROVISION OF THIS ACT; TO AMEND SECTIONS 24-13-1520, 24-21-220, 24-21-221, 24-21-280, 24-21-300, 24-21-480, 24-21-540, ALL AS AMENDED, SECTIONS 24-22-30, 24-22-40, AND 24-23-30, ALL RELATING TO VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE BOARD OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES, SO AS TO CONFORM THESE PROVISIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; TO AMEND SECTIONS 44-48-30, 44-48-40, AND 44-48-50, ALL AS AMENDED, AND ALL RELATING TO PROVISIONS CONTAINING REFERENCES TO THE JUVENILE PAROLE BOARD AND THE BOARD OF PROBATION, PAROLE AND PARDON SERVICES, SO AS TO CONFORM THESE PROVISIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND TO REPEAL SUBARTICLE 5, ARTICLE 30, CHAPTER 7, TITLE 20, RELATING TO THE JUVENILE PAROLE BOARD.
l:\council\bills\nbd\11543ac05.doc
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Corrections and Penology.
S. 602 (Word version) -- Senators Drummond, Campsen, Patterson, Alexander, Bryant, Cromer, Grooms, Ford, Verdin, Leatherman, Malloy, Martin, McConnell, Elliott, Richardson, O'Dell, J. Verne Smith, Hayes, Peeler, Ritchie, Anderson, McGill, Scott, Setzler, Knotts, Gregory, Land, Williams, Moore, Ryberg, Leventis, Short, Mescher, Hutto, Lourie, Hawkins, Jackson, Cleary and Pinckney: A SENATE RESOLUTION COMMENDING DR. JOHN L. CARSON FOR HIS EXEMPLARY SERVICE AS PRESIDENT OF ERSKINE COLLEGE AND SEMINARY DURING THE PAST SEVEN YEARS AND WISHING HIM AND HIS FAMILY WELL AS HE LEAVES ERSKINE CONTINUING TO FOLLOW GOD'S CALLING.
l:\council\bills\swb\6387cm05.doc
The Senate Resolution was adopted.
H. 3155 (Word version) -- Reps. Townsend, Wilkins, Walker, Littlejohn, Battle, Clark, Cobb-Hunter, Simrill, Sandifer, Haley, Brady, Hagood, Talley, G. R. Smith and Neilson: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 59 TO TITLE 59 SO AS TO ENACT THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CURRICULUM ORGANIZED AROUND A CAREER CLUSTER SYSTEM THAT MUST PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH BOTH STRONG ACADEMICS AND REAL-WORLD PROBLEM-SOLVING SKILLS; TO AMEND SECTION 59-17-135, RELATING TO CHARACTER EDUCATION, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TRAITS WHICH MUST BE INCORPORATED INTO SCHOOL BOARD POLICIES ADDRESSING CHARACTER EDUCATION; TO AMEND SECTION 59-18-900, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO SCHOOL REPORT CARDS, SO AS TO EXPAND THE CONTENT OF THE REPORT CARD TO INCLUDE, DROPOUT REDUCTION DATA; AND TO REPEAL ACT 450 OF 1994 AND SECTION 59-52-95 RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA SCHOOL-TO-WORK TRANSITION ACT OF 1994.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.
H. 3249 (Word version) -- Reps. White, Walker, Davenport and Mahaffey: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 37, TITLE 40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF OPTOMETRISTS, SO AS TO CONFORM THIS CHAPTER TO THE STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK ESTABLISHED FOR PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL BOARDS IN CHAPTER 1, TITLE 40, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION; AND TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSURE AND REGULATION OF OPTOMETRISTS, AND AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO PROVIDE THAT A BACHELOR OF ARTS OR BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IS REQUIRED FOR LICENSURE, TO ESTABLISH LICENSURE BY ENDORSEMENT, TO PROVIDE THAT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, ALL LICENSED OPTOMETRISTS MUST BE LICENSED AS THERAPEUTICALLY-CERTIFIED OPTOMETRISTS, AND TO PROVIDE TRANSITION PROVISIONS.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Medical Affairs.
H. 3295 (Word version) -- Reps. Taylor, Duncan and M. A. Pitts: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NAME THE WALKWAY THAT EXTENDS FROM THE E. B. MORSE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CAMPUS TO THE JOE R. ADAIR OUTDOOR EDUCATION CENTER THE "JOE R. ADAIR MEMORIAL WALKWAY" AND TO ERECT APPROPRIATE MARKERS OR SIGNS AT THIS WALKWAY CONTAINING THE WORDS "JOE R. ADAIR MEMORIAL WALKWAY".
The Concurrent Resolution was introduced and referred to the Committee on Transportation.
H. 3347 (Word version) -- Reps. Scott, Cato, Tripp, J. Hines, Hosey, M. Hines, Vaughn, Bales, Battle, Branham, Breeland, R. Brown, Davenport, Hamilton, Haskins, Jennings, Leach, Loftis, Miller, Rhoad, Rivers and G. R. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 7-13-1655 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION SHALL ADOPT ONE VOTING SYSTEM TO BE USED TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS IN THIS STATE AND DEFINE "VOTING SYSTEM"; TO AMEND SECTION 7-13-1320, RELATING TO THE PROCUREMENT AND USE OF VOTE RECORDERS, SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF AN "OPTICAL SCAN VOTING SYSTEM" INSTEAD OF "VOTE RECORDERS" FOR USE IN ABSENTEE PRECINCTS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 7-13-1330 AND 7-13-1620, BOTH AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE VOTING MACHINE APPROVAL PROCESS, SO AS TO CHANGE REFERENCES TO AN "OPTICAL SCAN VOTING SYSTEM" AND DELETE REFERENCES TO A SYSTEM BEING APPROVED BY AN INDEPENDENT TESTING AUTHORITY AND TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR REPORTING DECERTIFICATION BY A VENDER WHEN HE HAS COMMITTED ETHICAL OR TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS IN ANOTHER STATE; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 7-13-1310 RELATING TO THE USE OF VOTE RECORDERS, AND SECTION 7-13-1660 RELATING TO THE ACQUISITION AND USE OF APPROVED VOTING MACHINES BY A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY.
Read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
H. 3683 (Word version) -- Reps. Walker, Sinclair, Littlejohn, Mahaffey, Lee, Davenport and W. D. Smith: A BILL TO AMEND ACT 612 OF 1984, RELATING TO THE SPARTANBURG COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS, INCLUDING REQUIRING THAT A PETITION BE FILED IN ORDER TO PLACE A CANDIDATE ON THE BALLOT, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT AN INCUMBENT BOARD MEMBER WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY MET THIS PETITION REQUIREMENT AND WHO HAS BEEN IN CONTINUOUS SERVICE IS ONLY REQUIRED TO SUBMIT HIS OR HER NAME AND A ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR FILING FEE AND TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT IF NO PETITION IS FILED THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MUST APPOINT A SUCCESSOR.
Read the first time and ordered placed on the Local and Uncontested Calendar.
H. 3710 (Word version) -- Rep. Lucas: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO HONOR AND RECOGNIZE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THEODORE "DOC" HOUGH OF DARLINGTON COUNTY UPON THE OCCASION OF HIS RETIREMENT AND TO WISH HIM GOOD HEALTH AND IMMENSE HAPPINESS IN ALL HIS FUTURE ENDEAVORS.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.
H. 3713 (Word version) -- Reps. Scott, Agnew, Allen, Altman, Anderson, Anthony, Bailey, Bales, Ballentine, Barfield, Battle, Bingham, Bowers, Brady, Branham, Breeland, G. Brown, J. Brown, R. Brown, Cato, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clark, Clemmons, Clyburn, Coates, Cobb-Hunter, Coleman, Cooper, Cotty, Dantzler, Davenport, Delleney, Duncan, Edge, Emory, Frye, Funderburk, Govan, Hagood, Haley, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Harrison, Harvin, Haskins, Hayes, Herbkersman, J. Hines, M. Hines, Hinson, Hiott, Hosey, Howard, Huggins, Jefferson, Jennings, Kennedy, Kirsh, Leach, Lee, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Lloyd, Loftis, Lucas, Mack, Mahaffey, Martin, McCraw, McGee, McLeod, Merrill, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J. H. Neal, J. M. Neal, Neilson, Norman, Ott, Owens, Parks, Perry, Phillips, Pinson, E. H. Pitts, M. A. Pitts, Rhoad, Rice, Rivers, Rutherford, Sandifer, Scarborough, Simrill, Sinclair, Skelton, D. C. Smith, F. N. Smith, G. M. Smith, G. R. Smith, J. E. Smith, J. R. Smith, W. D. Smith, Stewart, Talley, Taylor, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, Weeks, Whipper, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon and Young: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING AND COMMENDING MICHELLE KRISTA WINTER STRANGE FOR HER COMMITMENT AND NUMEROUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ANDERSON COMMUNITY.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.
H. 3715 (Word version) -- Rep. Merrill: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO HONOR AND RECOGNIZE THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SIENNA RESTAURANT AND ITS EXECUTIVE CHEF KEN VEDRINSKI OF DANIEL ISLAND ON THE OCCASION OF ITS ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION.
The Concurrent Resolution was adopted, ordered returned to the House.
Senator RYBERG from the Committee on Transportation submitted a majority favorable with amendment and Senator GROOMS a minority unfavorable report on:
S. 40 (Word version) -- Senator Richardson: A BILL TO AMEND ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 56, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TRAFFIC LAWS, BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-830 SO AS TO AUTHORIZE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ADOPT ORDINANCES FOR THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN TRAFFIC LAWS BY THE USE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL MONITORING SYSTEMS; TO AMEND SECTION 14-25-45, RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF SUMMARY COURTS, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR JURISDICTION OVER NONCRIMINAL CITATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 56-5-830; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-5-710, RELATING TO THE POWERS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO ENFORCE TRAFFIC LAWS, SO AS TO ADD THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT ORDINANCES FOR THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN TRAFFIC LAWS BY THE USE OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL MONITORING SYSTEMS.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
Senator GREGORY from the Committee on Fish, Game and Forestry submitted a favorable with amendment report on:
S. 297 (Word version) -- Senators Gregory and Campsen: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-9-15 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IS AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE THE FORM OF ANY LICENSE, STAMP, PERMIT OR TAGS ISSUED UNDER TITLE 50 AND IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR ELECTRONIC SALE AND DISTRIBUTION, TO ALSO AUTHORIZE THE DEPARTMENT FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD TO COLLECT A ONE DOLLAR SURCHARGE ON ANY LICENSE, STAMP, PERMIT, OR TAG ISSUED, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS SURCHARGE SHALL BE USED; AND TO AMEND SECTION 50-9-530, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO MIGRATORY WATERFOWL STAMPS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE FORM OF THE STAMP MUST BE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE DEPARTMENT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT ANY PICTORIAL STAMP MUST BE VALIDATED BY THE SIGNATURE OF THE LICENSEE WRITTEN ACROSS THE FACE OF THE STAMP.
Ordered for consideration tomorrow.
THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED LOCAL AND STATEWIDE CALENDAR.
The following Bill was read the third time and, having received three readings in both Houses, it was ordered that the title be changed to that of an Act and enrolled for Ratification:
H. 3126 (Word version) -- Reps. Duncan, Rice and M.A. Pitts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1250, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE, CONTENT, POSSESSION, AND DISPLAY OF A VEHICLE REGISTRATION CARD, AND THE PENALTY FOR THE FAILURE OF THE OWNER OF A VEHICLE TO SIGN THE VEHICLE'S REGISTRATION CARD, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES A VEHICLE OWNER TO SIGN THE VEHICLE'S REGISTRATION CARD AND THE PENALTY FOR THE FAILURE OF THE OWNER OF A VEHICLE TO SIGN THE VEHICLE'S REGISTRATION CARD.
The following Bills and Joint Resolution were read the third time and ordered sent to the House of Representatives:
S. 141 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes, Knotts and Elliott: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 15-49-20 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF A PETITIONER SEEKING A NAME CHANGE, TO PROVIDE THAT A PETITIONER REQUESTING A NAME CHANGE MUST SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT STATING HE HAS NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME OTHER THAN THE NAME IN WHICH HE IS MAKING THE REQUEST AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR A VIOLATION OF THE SECTION.
S. 344 (Word version) -- Senator J. Verne Smith: A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-7-5710 AND 20-7-5720, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BOTH RELATING TO THE INTERAGENCY SYSTEM FOR CARING FOR EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN, SO AS TO SPECIFY THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ARE AMONG THE AGENCIES RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THIS SYSTEM, TO SPECIFY THAT THE GOAL OF THE SYSTEM IS TO SUPPORT CHILDREN WHO ARE AT RISK FOR PLACEMENT IN AN OUT-OF-HOME TREATMENT SETTING, AND TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SYSTEM; AND TO AMEND SECTION 20-7-5730, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE SERVICES FUND FOR EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN, SO AS TO CLARIFY THE PAYMENT METHOD FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S SHARE OF COSTS FOR CHILDREN IN THE SYSTEM.
S. 405 (Word version) -- Senator Ryberg: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 54 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAY ISSUE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES.
S. 583 (Word version) -- Senators J. Verne Smith and Hutto: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO EXTEND BY ONE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX YEAR THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ALLOWED FOR PROPERTY NOT OWNED BY BUT WHICH IS USED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA OR THE GIRL SCOUTS OF AMERICA.
By prior motion of Senator J.VERNE SMITH
The following Bills and Joint Resolutions, having been read the second time, were ordered placed on the Third Reading Calendar:
S. 307 (Word version) -- Senators Peeler, Verdin, Cromer, Ryberg, Knotts, Alexander and Thomas: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-1885 SO AS TO PROVIDE THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN IT IS LAWFUL TO DRIVE A VEHICLE IN THE LEFT LANE OF AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY, AND TO PROVIDE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A TRAFFIC TICKET MAY BE ISSUED FOR THE VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISION.
S. 78 (Word version) -- Senator Knotts: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-6-440, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE INDICIA OF COMPLIANCE AND QUALIFICATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR OTHER PERSONS TRAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY'S DIVISION OF TRAINING AND CONTINUING EDUCATION, SO AS TO REVISE THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE RELATING TO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS AND CHARACTER THAT AN EMPLOYER OF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER MUST PROVIDE TO THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING AN OFFICER WHO IS A CANDIDATE FOR CERTIFICATION; TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-990, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RESTORATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF A PERSON WHO RECEIVES A PARDON, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PARDON DOES NOT ALLOW A PERSON TO BECOME A CERTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO AMEND SECTION 24-21-1000, RELATING TO A CERTIFICATE OF PARDON ISSUED TO A PERSON WHO IS GRANTED A PARDON, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PARDONED CRIMES AND CONVICTIONS MAY BE USED TO ENHANCE CERTAIN SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES.
S. 427 (Word version) -- Senators Campsen, Leatherman, Cleary, Fair, Malloy, Cromer, McGill, Mescher, Rankin, Ritchie, Lourie, McConnell, Martin, Ryberg, Bryant, Peeler, Grooms, Verdin, Sheheen, Short, Gregory, J. Verne Smith, Courson, Elliott, Alexander, Moore, Drummond, Hayes, Scott, Land, Williams, Thomas, Hutto and Matthews: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III, SECTION 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT, AFTER THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONVENES ON THE SECOND TUESDAY IN JANUARY OF EACH YEAR, THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY RECEDE FOR A TIME PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY CALENDAR DAYS, UNLESS EXTENDED BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT EACH BODY MAY BY APPROPRIATE RULE PROVIDE FOR MEETINGS DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION AS IT SHALL CONSIDER EXPEDIENT; AND TO AMEND ARTICLE III BY DELETING SECTION 21, WHICH PROVIDES THAT NEITHER HOUSE, DURING THE SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SHALL WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER ADJOURN FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, NOR TO ANY OTHER PLACE THAN THAT IN WHICH IT SHALL BE AT THE TIME SITTING.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Joint Resolution, the question being the second reading of the Joint Resolution.
Senator McCONNELL moved that the text of the Joint Resolution be printed upon the pages of the Journal and the Joint Resolution be ordered to receive a second reading:
S. 427 (Word version) -- Senators Campsen, Leatherman, Cleary, Fair, Malloy, Cromer, McGill, Mescher, Rankin, Ritchie, Lourie, McConnell, Martin, Ryberg, Bryant, Peeler, Grooms, Verdin, Sheheen, Short, Gregory, J. Verne Smith, Courson, Elliott, Alexander, Moore, Drummond, Hayes, Scott, Land, Williams, Thomas, Hutto and Matthews: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III, SECTION 9 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT, AFTER THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONVENES ON THE SECOND TUESDAY IN JANUARY OF EACH YEAR, THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY RECEDE FOR A TIME PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED THIRTY CALENDAR DAYS, UNLESS EXTENDED BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, AND TO PROVIDE THAT EACH BODY MAY BY APPROPRIATE RULE PROVIDE FOR MEETINGS DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION AS IT SHALL CONSIDER EXPEDIENT; AND TO AMEND ARTICLE III BY DELETING SECTION 21, WHICH PROVIDES THAT NEITHER HOUSE, DURING THE SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SHALL WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE OTHER ADJOURN FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS, NOR TO ANY OTHER PLACE THAN THAT IN WHICH IT SHALL BE AT THE TIME SITTING.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. It is proposed that Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution of this State be amended to read:
"Section 9. The annual session of the General Assembly heretofore elected, fixed by the Constitution of the year Eighteen hundred and Sixty-eight to convene on the fourth Tuesday of November, in the year Eighteen hundred and Ninety-five, is hereby postponed, and the same shall be convened and held in the city of Columbia on the second Tuesday of January, in the year Eighteen hundred and Ninety-six. The first session of the General Assembly elected under this Constitution shall convene in Columbia on the second Tuesday in January, in the year Eighteen hundred and Ninety-seven, and thereafter annually at the same time and place shall convene at the State Capitol Building in the City of Columbia on the second Tuesday of January of each year. After the convening of the General Assembly, nothing in this section shall prohibit the Senate or the House of Representatives, or both, from receding for a time period not to exceed thirty consecutive calendar days at a time by a majority vote of the members of the body of the General Assembly seeking to recede for a time period not to exceed thirty consecutive calendar days, or from receding for a time period of more than thirty consecutive calendar days at a time by a two-thirds vote of the members of the body of the General Assembly seeking to recede for more than thirty consecutive calendar days at a time. Each body shall sit in session at the State Capitol Building in the City of Columbia and may provide for meetings during the legislative session as it shall consider appropriate. Provided, That the Furthermore, the Senate or the House of Representatives, or both, shall may meet on the first Tuesday following the certification of the election of its members for not more than three days following the general election in even-numbered years for the purpose of organizing. Should If the casualties of war or contagious disease render it unsafe to meet at the seat of government, then the Governor may, by proclamation, may appoint a more secure and convenient place of meeting. Members of the General Assembly shall not receive any compensation for more than forty days of any one session. Provided, That this limitation shall not affect the first four sessions of the General Assembly under this Constitution."
SECTION 2. The proposed amendment must be submitted to the qualified electors at the next general election for representatives. Ballots must be provided at the various voting precincts with the following words printed or written on the ballots:
"Shall Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to provide that the annual session of the General Assembly shall commence on the second Tuesday in January at the State Capitol Building in the City of Columbia, but that each body shall be authorized by majority vote to recede for a period of time not to exceed thirty consecutive calendar days at a time, or by two-thirds vote to recede for a time period of more than thirty consecutive calendar days at a time, and to sit in session at the State Capitol Building in the City of Columbia, and to provide for meetings as each body shall consider appropriate, and to provide for an organizational session for the Senate in those years in which the membership of the Senate is elected and to delete obsolete language relating to earlier sessions of the General Assembly?
No []
Those voting in favor of the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word `Yes' and those voting against the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word `No'."
SECTION 3. It is proposed that Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended by deleting Section 21, which reads:
"Section 21. Neither house, during the session of the General Assembly, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which it shall be at the time sitting."
SECTION 4. The proposed amendment must be submitted to the qualified electors at the next general election for representatives. Ballots must be provided at the various voting precincts with the following words printed or written on the ballots:
"Shall Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended by deleting Section 21 which provides that neither house of the General Assembly shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which it shall be at the time sitting?
No []
Those voting in favor of the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word `Yes' and those voting against the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word `No'."
SECTION 5. This joint resolution takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Senator McCONNELL explained the Joint Resolution.
The question then was the second reading of the Joint Resolution.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Alexander Anderson Bryant Campsen Cleary Courson Cromer Drummond Elliott Fair Ford Gregory Grooms Hawkins Hayes Hutto Jackson Knotts Land Leatherman Leventis Lourie Malloy Martin Matthews McConnell McGill Mescher Moore O'Dell Patterson Peeler Pinckney Rankin Reese Richardson Ritchie Ryberg Scott Setzler Sheheen Short Smith, J. Verne Thomas Verdin Williams
The Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.
S. 418 (Word version) -- Senators Hayes and Land: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 54 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 56 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAY ISSUE ARTS AWARENESS SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES.
Senator HAYES spoke on the Bill.
Senator HAYES moved to reconsider the vote whereby S. 418 was read the second time on March 3, 2005.
The motion was adopted.
The Bill was ordered returned to the Second Reading Calendar.
S. 289 (Word version) -- Senator Gregory: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2420, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO COMMERCIAL FUR LICENSES, SO AS TO INCREASE THE LICENSE FEES; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2460, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE TRAPPING OF FURBEARERS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE TYPES OF TRAPS WHICH MAY BE USED; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2475, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A FUR PROCESSOR'S LICENSE, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A LICENSE AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2480, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A FUR BUYER'S LICENSE, SO AS TO MAKE A TECHNICAL CORRECTION; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2490, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO FUR BUYERS AND PROCESSORS REQUIRED TO KEEP A DAILY REGISTER, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE PERSONS REQUIRED TO KEEP SUCH A REGISTER AND THE CONTENTS OF THE REGISTER; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2510, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE TAGGING OF BOBCAT AND OTTER FURS, PELTS, AND HIDES AND THE ISSUANCE AND FEES FOR THOSE TAGS, SO AS TO REVISE THOSE PERSONS REQUIRED TO HAVE SUCH A TAG AND THE FEES AND PROCEDURES FOR THOSE TAGS; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2515, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL TRAFFICKING IN FURS OR FURBEARING ANIMALS, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE ELEMENTS OF THIS OFFENSE; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2540, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE COMMERCIAL TRAPPING SEASON FOR FURBEARING ANIMALS, SO AS TO REVISE THE LENGTH OF THIS SEASON; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2560, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING THE PROVISIONS OF CERTAIN FUR AND FURBEARING PROVISIONS OF LAW, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THOSE PROVISIONS TO WHICH THESE PENALTIES APPLY; TO AMEND SECTION 50-11-2610, RELATING TO FOX AND COYOTE HUNTING ENCLOSURE PERMITS, SO AS TO REVISE THE PERMIT YEAR; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 50-11-2500 RELATING TO PERMITS TO HOLD FURS BEYOND THE END OF THE REGULAR SEASON FOR TAKING FUR BEARING ANIMALS.
On motion of Senator MARTIN, the Bill was carried over.
H. 3373 (Word version) -- Reps. W.D. Smith, Walker, Sinclair, Davenport, Littlejohn, Mahaffey and Talley: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 57-23-810 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE PORTION OF ROADSIDE VEGETATION ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 26, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 85, AND INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 585 IN SPARTANBURG COUNTY MAY BE MOWED BEYOND THIRTY FEET FROM THE PAVEMENT.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question being the third reading of the Bill.
Senator RICHARDSON spoke on the Bill.
Senator RICHARDSON asked unanimous consent to take up for immediate consideration a further amendment on third reading.
There was no objection.
Senator RICHARDSON proposed the following amendment (SWB\6384CM05):
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting:
/ SECTION 1. Section 57-23-800 of the 1976 Code, as added by Act 17 of 1999 is amended to read:
"Section 57-23-800. (A) The Department of Transportation shall conduct vegetation management of the medians, roadsides, and interchanges along the interstate highway system in accordance with the following requirements: at its discretion. However, before it implements a new vegetation management policy pursuant to this section, the department must consult with the local governmental authority that has jurisdiction over the portion of highway subject to the vegetation management policy.
(1) a median of not more than sixty feet in width shall have its mowable area mowed in its entirety. A median wider than sixty feet shall only be mowed within thirty feet from the edges of the pavement.
(2) a roadside shall be mowed thirty feet from the edge of the pavement. If fill slopes or back slopes are steep, one swath of the mower or not less than five feet shall be mowed on these slopes.
(3) an interchange shall be mowed in the same manner as a roadside, provided that the distance from the pavement required to be mowed may be increased to address any safety concerns involved.
(B) The mowing widths provided in subsection (A) may be increased when necessary to provide adequate visibility for signs erected by the department.
(C) The vegetation management activities conducted by the department shall not interfere in any way with the visibility of any outdoor advertising sign.
(D) If the Department of Natural Resources makes an assessment and written determination that vegetation management pursuant to this section causes an increase in safety risks because of the attraction of wildlife to a specific area along the highway, then the department may increase the distance from the pavement required to be mowed."
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor. /
Renumber sections to conform.
Amend title to conform.
Senator RICHARDSON spoke on the amendment.
On motion of Senator J. VERNE SMITH, the Bill was carried over.
THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE MOTION PERIOD.
On motion of Senator MARTIN, the Senate agreed to dispense with the Motion Period.
HAVING DISPENSED WITH THE MOTION PERIOD, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO A CONSIDERATION OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE.
S. 83 (Word version) -- Senators McConnell, Moore, Campsen, Ryberg, O'Dell, Elliott, Alexander, Gregory, Leatherman, Richardson and Bryant: A BILL TO ENACT THE "TORT REFORM ACT OF 2005 RELATING TO MEDICAL MALPRACTICE" BY AMENDING TITLE 15, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CIVIL REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 32, SO AS TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE AWARD OF NONECONOMIC DAMAGES; TO AMEND CHAPTER 35, TITLE 15, RELATING TO CIVIL REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES, BY ADDING SECTION 15-35-400, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR OFFERS OF JUDGMENT AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CIVIL ACTION BASED ON CONTRACT OR SEEKING THE RECOVERY OF MONEY DAMAGES; TO AMEND CHAPTER 36, TITLE 15, RELATING TO CIVIL REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES, BY ADDING SECTION 15-36-100, SO AS TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR EXPERT WITNESSES IN PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS; TO AMEND TITLE 15, RELATING TO CIVIL REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 79, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR MANDATORY MEDIATION AND TO PERMIT BINDING ARBITRATION IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS; TO AMEND ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 79, TITLE 38, RELATING TO THE JOINT UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION AND BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR THE PATIENTS' COMPENSATION FUND, BY ADDING SECTION 38-79-40, SO AS TO PROHIBIT A PERSON SERVING IN THESE AGENCIES FROM BEING EMPLOYED OR COMPENSATED BY EITHER OF THESE AGENCIES; TO AMEND SECTION 38-79-460, RELATING TO THE PATIENTS' COMPENSATION FUND, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE FUND SHALL BE MANAGED BY THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS RATHER THAN THE STATE TREASURER; TO AMEND SECTION 38-79-470, RELATING TO THE PATIENTS' COMPENSATION FUND, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MONEY SHALL BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE FUND UPON SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 40-47-211, RELATING TO THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, SO AS TO ALTER THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD BY PROVIDING FOR LAY MEMBERS.
The House returned the Bill with amendments.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question being concurrence in the House amendments.
On motion of Senator HUTTO, the Bill was carried over.
THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE INTERRUPTED DEBATE.
S. 345 (Word version) -- Senator Martin: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 15, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CIVIL REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 41, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, OR WRONGFUL DEATH, THE LIABILITY FOR EACH DEFENDANT IS SEVERAL ONLY AND MUST BE ALLOCATED TO THE DEFENDANTS BASED ON EACH DEFENDANT'S PERCENTAGE OF FAULT, TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING THE PERCENTAGES OF FAULT, AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS FOR INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS CONDUCT; TO AMEND SECTION 15-3-640, RELATING TO THE STATUTE OF REPOSE FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS, SO AS TO REDUCE THE STATUTE OF REPOSE FROM THIRTEEN TO SEVEN YEARS AND TO DEFINE "SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION"; TO AMEND SECTION 15-7-30, RELATING TO VENUE FOR A CIVIL ACTION, SO AS TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE PROPER VENUE; TO AMEND SECTION 15-7-100, RELATING TO A CHANGE OF VENUE OF A CIVIL ACTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN VENUE IS CHANGED, AN ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING PROPER VENUE; TO AMEND SECTION 15-36-10, RELATING TO FRIVOLOUS CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, SO AS TO ADOPT THE REASONABLE ATTORNEY STANDARD FOR CIVIL FILINGS BY ALL LITIGANTS AND TO REQUIRE THE REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ARTICLE; TO AMEND SECTION 34-31-20, RELATING TO POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT THE PRIME RATE PLUS FOUR PERCENT; TO AMEND SECTION 36-2-803, RELATING TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS, SO AS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT JURISDICTION UNDER THIS SECTION PRECLUDES A CHANGE OF VENUE; BY ADDING SECTION 39-5-39, SO AS TO MAKE IT AN UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICE FOR AN ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE HIS SERVICES IN A FALSE, DECEPTIVE, OR MISLEADING WAY, INCLUDING THE USE OF A NICKNAME THAT CREATES AN UNREASONABLE EXPECTATION OF RESULTS; TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, RELATING TO INSURANCE SAVINGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE MUST REVIEW DATA REPORTED BY LIABILITY INSURERS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF ANY SAVINGS ARE REALIZED AS A RESULT OF A DECREASE IN LITIGATION OR CLAIMS PAID AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 15-36-20, 15-36-30, 15-36-40, AND 15-36-50, RELATING TO FRIVOLOUS CIVIL PROCEEDINGS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 58-23-90, RELATING TO THE PROPER VENUE TO BRING AN ACTION AGAINST A LICENSED MOTOR CARRIER.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question being the adoption of Amendment No. 1 (345-10%) proposed by Senator HUTTO and previously printed in the Journal of Thursday, February 24, 2005.
Senator MARTIN spoke on the amendment.
At 1:40 P.M., Senator WILLIAMS assumed the Chair.
Senator MARTIN resumed speaking on the amendment.
At 2:21 P.M., the PRESIDENT assumed the Chair.
Senator MARTIN resumed speaking on the amendment.
On motion of Senator HAWKINS, with unanimous consent, Senators HAWKINS, SHEHEEN, CROMER and LOURIE were granted leave to attend a subcommittee meeting, be counted in any quorum calls and be granted leave to vote from the balcony.
Senator MARTIN resumed speaking on the amendment.
At 3:47 P.M., Senator McCONNELL asked unanimous consent, with Senator MARTIN retaining the floor, to make a motion that the Senate proceed to a consideration of H. 3008, adopt Amendment No. 2, give the Bill a second reading, as amended, give the Bill a third reading on Wednesday, March 9, 2005, and then resume consideration of S. 345 for the purpose of recommitting it to the Committee on Judiciary.
Senator JACKSON objected.
Senator MARTIN resumed speaking on the amendment.
At 3:48 P.M., with Senator MARTIN retaining the floor, Senator McCONNELL made a motion, with unanimous consent, that the Senate recede from business not to exceed ten minutes.
There was no objection.
At 4:14 P.M., the Senate resumed.
Senator MARTIN resumed speaking on the amendment.
At 4:16 P.M., Senator McCONNELL asked unanimous consent, with Senator MARTIN retaining the floor, to make a motion that the Senate proceed to a consideration of H. 3008, adopt Amendment No. 2, give the Bill a second reading, as amended, give the Bill a third reading on Wednesday, March 9, 2005, and then resume consideration of S. 345 for the purpose of recommitting it to the Committee on Judiciary.
There was no objection.
H. 3008 (Word version) -- Reps. Cato, Bales, Clark, Barfield, Huggins, Frye, Sandifer, E.H. Pitts, Taylor, Anthony, Bailey, Battle, Bingham, Ceips, Chalk, Chellis, Clemmons, Cooper, Dantzler, Davenport, Duncan, Edge, Hamilton, Hardwick, Harrell, Hinson, Kirsh, Leach, Limehouse, Littlejohn, Loftis, McCraw, Norman, Owens, Perry, Pinson, Rice, Simrill, Skelton, D.C. Smith, G.R. Smith, J.R. Smith, Stewart, Thompson, Toole, Townsend, Tripp, Umphlett, Vaughn, Vick, Viers, Walker, White, Whitmire, Wilkins, Witherspoon, Coates, Brady, Ballentine, Ott, Mahaffey, Haley, Hagood, Bowers and Young: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 32 TO TITLE 15, SO AS TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CITIZENS, AND SMALL BUSINESS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005", PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS "DAMAGES", "FAULT", AND "PERSON", SEVERAL LIABILITY IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, OR WRONGFUL DEATH, A PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSING PERCENTAGES OF FAULT, JOINT LIABILITY ON ALL WHO CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY PURSUE A COMMON PLAN TO COMMIT A TORTIOUS ACT, PLACEMENT OF THE BURDEN OF PROVING FAULT ON THE PERSON SEEKING TO ESTABLISH FAULT, AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER; TO AMEND SECTION 15-3-640, RELATING TO AN ACTION BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE OR UNSAFE IMPROVEMENT TO REAL PROPERTY, SO AS TO DECREASE THE TIME AN ACTION MAY BE BROUGHT FROM THIRTEEN TO SIX YEARS AFTER THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF THE IMPROVEMENT; TO AMEND SECTION 15-7-30, RELATING TO ACTIONS THAT MUST BE TRIED WHERE THE DEFENDANT RESIDES, SO AS TO DEFINE KEY TERMS AND TO PROVIDE FACTORS FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER WHEN DETERMINING THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS; TO AMEND SECTION 15-36-10, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO LIABILITY FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS OF FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS, SO AS TO REPLACE THE EXISTING PROVISIONS WITH PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE SIGNATURE OF AN ATTORNEY OR PARTY ON ALL PLEADINGS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FILED IN A CIVIL OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTERING SANCTIONS FOR A VIOLATION, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE REPORTING OF AN ATTORNEY TO THE COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT; TO AMEND SECTION 36-2-803, RELATING TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION BASED UPON CONDUCT, SO AS TO ALLOW THE COURT TO CHANGE THE PLACE OF TRIAL WHEN THE CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES AND THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE PROMOTED BY THE CHANGE; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 15-36-20, 15-36-30, 15-36-40, AND 15-36-50 ALL RELATING TO FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS, AND SECTION 58-23-90 RELATING TO VENUE IN ACTIONS AGAINST LICENSED MOTOR CARRIERS.
The Senate proceeded to a consideration of the Bill, the question being the second reading of the Bill.
Senators McCONNELL, MOORE, LEATHERMAN, LAND, MARTIN, HUTTO, RITCHIE, MALLOY, McGILL, O'DELL, MATTHEWS, SHEHEEN, WILLIAMS and FAIR proposed the following amendment (JUD3008.002), which was adopted:
Amend the bill, as and if amended, by striking all after the enacting words and inserting therein the following:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY FINDINGS
SECTION 1. The General Assembly finds that the sections presented in this act constitute one subject as required by Article III, Section 17 of the South Carolina Constitution, in particular finding that each change and each topic relates directly to or in conjunction with other sections to the subject of tort and other civil action reform as clearly enumerated in the title.
The General Assembly further finds that a common purpose or relationship exists among the sections, representing a potential plurality but not disunity of topics, notwithstanding that reasonable minds might differ in identifying more than one topic contained in the act.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 2. Section 15-3-640 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 15-3-640. No actions to recover damages based upon or arising out of the defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property may be brought more than thirteen eight years after substantial completion of such an the improvement. For purposes of this section, an action based upon or arising out of the defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property includes:
(1) an action to recover damages for breach of a contract to construct or repair an improvement to real property;
(2) an action to recover damages for the negligent construction or repair of an improvement to real property;
(3) an action to recover damages for personal injury, death, or damage to property;
(4) an action to recover damages for economic or monetary loss;
(5) an action in contract or in tort or otherwise;
(6) an action for contribution or indemnification for damages sustained on account of an action described in this subdivision section;
(7) an action against a surety or guarantor of a defendant described in this section;
(8) an action brought against any current or prior owner of the real property or improvement, or against any other person having a current or prior interest in the real property or improvement;
(9) an action against owners or manufacturers of components, or against any person furnishing materials, or against any person who develops real property, or who performs or furnishes the design, plans, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision, testing, or observation of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property, or a repair to an improvement to real property.
This section describes an outside limitation of thirteen eight years after the substantial completion of the improvement, within which normal statutes of limitations continue to run.
Any A building permit for the construction of an improvement to real property shall must contain in bold type notice to the owner or possessor of the property of his rights under this section to contract for a guarantee of the structure being free from defective or unsafe conditions beyond thirteen eight years after substantial completion of the improvement. The Department of Consumer Affairs shall publish in conspicuous places the right of any an owner or possessor to contract for such extended liability under this section. Nothing in this section shall prohibit any prohibits a person from entering into any a contractual agreement prior to the substantial completion of the improvement which extends any guarantee of a structure or component being free from defective or unsafe conditions beyond thirteen eight years after substantial completion of the improvement or component.
For any improvement to real property, a certificate of occupancy issued by a county or municipality, in the case of new construction or completion of a final inspection by the responsible building official in the case of improvements to existing improvements, shall constitute proof of substantial completion of the improvement under the provisions of Section 15-3-630, unless the contractor and owner, by written agreement, establish a different date of substantial completion."
SECTION 3. Section 15-7-30 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 15-7-30. (A) As used in this section:
(1) 'Domestic corporation' means a 'domestic corporation' as defined in Section 33-1-400.
(2) 'Domestic limited partnership' means a 'domestic limited partnership' as defined in Section 33-42-20.
(3) 'Domestic limited liability company' means a 'domestic limited liability partnership' as defined in Section 33-41-1110 with its principal place of business within this State.
(4) 'Domestic limited liability partnership' means a 'domestic limited liability partnership' as defined in Section 33-41-1110 with its principal place of business within this State.
(5) 'Foreign corporation' means a 'foreign corporation' as defined in Section 33-1-400.
(6) 'Foreign limited partnership' means a 'foreign limited partnership' as defined in Section 33-42-20.
(7) 'Foreign limited liability company' means a 'foreign limited liability partnership' as defined in Section 33-41-1150 with its principal place of business outside this State.
(8) 'Foreign limited liability partnership' means a 'foreign limited liability partnership' as defined in Section 33-41-1150 with its principal place of business outside this State.
(9) 'Nonresident individual' means a person who is not domiciled in this State.
(10) 'Principal place of business' means:
(a) the corporation's home office location within the State from which the corporation's officers direct, control, or coordinate its activities;
(b) the location of the corporation's manufacturing, sales, or purchasing facility within the State if the corporation does not have a home office within the State; or
(c) the location at which the majority of corporate activity takes place if the corporation has multiple offices, centers of manufacturing, sales, or purchasing located within the State if the corporation does not have a home office within the State and has more than one manufacturing, sales or purchasing facility within the State. The following factors may be considered when determining the location at which the majority of corporate activity takes place:
(i) the number of employees located in any one county;
(ii) the authority of the employees located in any one county; or
(iii) the tangible corporate assets that exist in any one county.
(11) 'Resident individual' means a person who is domiciled in this State.
(B) In all other cases not provided for in Sections 15-7-10, 15-7-20, or 15-78-100, the action shall must be tried in the county where it properly may be brought and tried against the defendant according to the provisions of this section in which the defendant resides at the time of the commencement of the action. If there be is more than one defendant then the action may be tried in any county where the action properly may be maintained against one of the defendants pursuant to this section. in which one or more of the defendants to such action resides at the time of the commencement of the action. If none of the parties shall reside in the State the action may be tried in any county which the plaintiff shall designate in his complaint. This section is subject however to the power of the court in the county where the action properly may be maintained according to this section to change the place of trial as provided in Section 15-7-100 or as otherwise in certain cases as provided by law.
(C) A civil action tried pursuant to this section against a resident individual defendant must be brought and tried in the county in which the:
(1) defendant resides at the time the cause of action arose; or
(2) most substantial part of the alleged act or omission giving rise to the cause of action occurred.
(D) A civil action tried pursuant to this section against a nonresident individual defendant must be brought and tried in the county in which the:
(1) most substantial part of the alleged act or omission giving rise to the cause of action occurred; or
(2) plaintiff resides at the time the cause of action arose, or if the plaintiff is a domestic corporation, domestic limited partnership, domestic limited liability company, domestic limited liability partnership, foreign corporation, foreign limited partnership, foreign limited liability company, or foreign limited liability partnership, at its principal place of business at the time the cause of action arose.
(E) A civil action tried pursuant to this section against a domestic corporation, domestic limited partnership, domestic limited liability company, or domestic limited liability partnership, must be brought and tried in the county in which the:
(1) corporation, limited partnership, limited liability company, or limited liability partnership has its principal place of business at the time the cause of action arose; or
(2) most substantial part of the alleged act or omission giving rise to the cause of action occurred.
(F) A civil action tried pursuant to this section against a foreign corporation required to possess a certificate of authority under the provisions of Section 33-15-101 et seq., a foreign limited partnership required to possess a certificate of authority under the provisions of Section 33-15-101 et seq., foreign limited liability company required to possess a certificate of authority under the provisions of Section 33-15-101 et seq., or foreign limited liability partnership required to possess a certificate of authority under the provisions of Section 33-15-101 et seq. must be brought and tried in the county in which the:
(1) most substantial part of the alleged act or omission giving rise to the cause of action occurred; or
(2) foreign corporation, foreign limited partnership, foreign limited liability company, or foreign limited liability partnership has its principal place of business at the time the cause of action arose.
(G) A civil action tried pursuant to this section against a foreign corporation not required to possess a certificate of authority under the provisions of Section 33-15-101 et seq., foreign limited partnership not required to possess a certificate of authority under the provisions of Section 33-15-101 et seq., foreign limited liability company not required to possess a certificate of authority under the provisions of Section 33-15-101 et seq., or foreign limited liability partnership not required to possess a certificate of authority under the provisions of Section 33-15-101 et seq. must be brought and tried in the county in which the:
(1) most substantial part of the alleged act or omission giving rise to the cause of action occurred;
(2) plaintiff resides at the time the cause of action arose, or if the plaintiff is a domestic corporation, domestic limited partnership, domestic limited liability company, domestic limited liability partnership, foreign corporation, foreign limited partnership, foreign limited liability company, or foreign limited liability partnership, at its principal place of business at the time the cause of action arose; or
(3) foreign corporation, foreign limited partnership, foreign limited liability company, or foreign limited liability partnership has its principal place of business at the time the cause of action arose.
(H) Owning property and transacting business in a county is insufficient in and of itself to establish the principal place of business for a corporation for purposes of this section."
SECTION 4. Section 15-7-100 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 15-7-100. (A) The court may change the place of trial in the following cases if:
(1) When the it is a court in a county designated for that purpose in the complaint, but the designated county is not the proper county pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the 1976 Code of South Carolina or other statutes providing for the venue of actions;
(2) When there is reason to believe that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had therein there; and or
(3) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.
(B) When the place of trial is changed, all other proceedings shall must be had in the county to which the place of trial is changed, unless otherwise provided by the consent of the parties in writing duly filed or by order of the court. And the papers shall The pleadings and other papers must be filed or transferred accordingly."
SECTION 5. Section 15-36-10 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 15-36-10. (A)(1) Any person who takes part in the procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of any civil proceeding is subject to being assessed for payment of all or a portion of the attorney's fees and court costs of the other party if:
(1) he does so primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties, or adjudication of the claim upon which the proceedings are based; and
(2) the proceedings have terminated in favor of the person seeking an assessment of the fees and costs.
As used in this chapter, `person' is defined to mean any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, and any other entity, including any governmental entity or unincorporated association of persons. A pleading filed in a civil or administrative action on behalf of a party who is represented by an attorney must be signed by at least one attorney of record who is an active member of the South Carolina Bar or who is admitted to practice in the courts of this State and must include the address and telephone number of the attorney signing the document.
(2) A document filed in a civil or administrative action by a party who is not represented by an attorney must be signed by the party and must include the address and telephone number of the party.
(3) The signature of an attorney or a pro se litigant constitutes a certificate to the court that:
(a) the person has read the document;
(b) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that under the facts his claim or defense may be warranted under the existing law or, if his claim or defense is not warranted under the existing law, a good faith argument exists for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
(c) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that his procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of a civil cause is not intended merely to harass or injure the other party; and
(d) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe his claim or defense is not frivolous, interposed for delay, or brought for any purpose other than securing proper discovery, joinder of parties, or adjudication of the claim or defense upon which the proceedings are based.
(4) An attorney or pro se litigant participating in a civil or administrative action or defense may be sanctioned for:
(a) filing a frivolous pleading, motion, or document if:
(i) the person has not read the frivolous pleading, motion, or document;
(ii) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that under the facts, his claim or defense was clearly not warranted under existing law and that a good faith or reasonable argument did not exist for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
(iii) a reasonable attorney presented with the same circumstances would believe that the procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of a civil cause was intended merely to harass or injure the other party; or
(iv) a reasonable attorney presented with the same circumstances would believe the pleading, motion, or document is frivolous, interposed for merely delay, or merely brought for any purpose other than securing proper discovery, joinder of parties, or adjudication of the claim or defense upon which the proceedings are based;
(b) making frivolous arguments a reasonable attorney would believe were not reasonably supported by the facts; or
(c) making frivolous arguments that a reasonable attorney would believe were not warranted under the existing law or if there is no good faith argument that exists for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.
(B)(1) If a document is not signed or does not otherwise comply with this section, it must be stricken unless it is signed promptly or amended to comply with this section after the omission is called to the attention of the attorney or the party.
(2) If a document is signed in violation of this section, or an attorney or pro se litigant has violated subsection (A)(4), the court, upon its own motion or motion of a party, may impose upon the person in violation any sanction which the court considers just, equitable, and proper under the circumstances.
(C)(1) At the conclusion of a trial and after a verdict for or a verdict against damages has been rendered or a case has been dismissed by a directed verdict, summary judgment, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, upon motion of the prevailing party, the court shall proceed to determine if the claim or defense was frivolous. An attorney, party, or pro se litigant shall be sanctioned for a frivolous claim or defense if the court finds the attorney, party, or pro se litigant failed to comply with one of the following conditions:
(a) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that under the facts, his claim or defense was clearly not warranted under existing law and that a good faith or reasonable argument did not exist for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
(b) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that his procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of the civil suit was intended merely to harass or injure the other party; or
(c) a reasonable attorney in the same circumstances would believe that the case or defense was frivolous as not reasonably founded in fact or was interposed merely for delay, or was merely brought for a purpose other than securing proper discovery, joinder of proposed parties, or adjudication of the claim or defense upon which the proceedings are based.
(2) Unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that an attorney, party, or pro se litigant engaged in advancing a frivolous claim or defense, the attorney, party, or pro se litigant shall not be sanctioned.
(D) A person is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the provisions of this section. A court or party proposing a sanction pursuant to this section shall notify the court and all parties of the conduct constituting a violation of the provisions of this section and explain the basis for the potential sanction imposed. Upon notification, the attorney, party, or pro se litigant who allegedly violated subsection (A)(4) has thirty days to respond to the allegations as that person considers appropriate, including, but not limited to, by filing a motion to withdraw the pleading, motion, document, or argument or by offering an explanation of mitigation.
(E) In determining if an attorney, party, or a pro se litigant has violated the provisions of this section, the court shall take into account:
(1) the number of parties;
(2) the complexity of the claims and defenses;
(3) the length of time available to the attorney, party, or pro se litigant to investigate and conduct discovery for alleged violations of the provisions of subsection (A)(4);
(4) information disclosed or undisclosed to the attorney, party, or pro se litigant through discovery and adequate investigation;
(5) previous violations of the provisions of this section;
(6) the response, if any, of the attorney, party, or pro se litigant to the allegation that he violated the provisions of this section; and
(7) other factors the court considers just, equitable, or appropriate under the circumstances.
(F) In determining whether sanctions are appropriate or the severity of a sanction, the court shall consider previous violations of the provisions of this section.
(G) Sanctions may include:
(1) an order for the party represented by an attorney or pro se litigant to pay the reasonable costs and attorney's fees of the prevailing party under a motion pursuant to this section. Costs shall include, but not be limited to, the following: the time required of the prevailing party by the frivolous proceeding, and travel expenses, mileage, parking, costs of reports, and any additional reasonable consequential expenses of the prevailing party resulting from the frivolous proceeding;
(2) an order for the attorney to pay a reasonable fine to the court; or
(3) a directive of a nonmonetary nature, including injunctive relief, designed to deter a future frivolous action or an action in bad faith.
(H) If the court imposes a sanction on an attorney in violation of the provisions of this section, the court shall report its findings to the South Carolina Commission of Lawyer Conduct.
(I) This act shall not alter the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure or the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules.
(J) The provisions of this section shall not apply where an attorney or pro se litigant establishes a basis to proceed with litigation, or to assert or controvert an issue therein, that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the existing law.
(K) The provisions of this section apply in addition to all other remedies available at law or in equity.
(L) The amount requested for damages in a pleading may not be considered in a determination of a violation of the provisions of this section.
(M) All violations of the provisions of this section must be reported to the South Carolina Supreme Court and a public record must be maintained and reported annually to the Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives."
SECTION 6. Chapter 38, Title 15 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
Section 15-38-15. (A)(1) In an action to recover damages resulting from personal injury, wrongful death, or damage to property or to recover damages for economic loss or for noneconomic loss such as mental distress, loss of enjoyment, pain, suffering, loss of reputation, or loss of companionship resulting from tortious conduct, if indivisible damages are determined to be proximately caused by more than one defendant, joint and several liability does not apply to any defendant whose conduct is determined to be less than fifty percent of the total fault for the indivisible damages as compared with the total of: (i) the fault of all the defendants; and (ii) the fault ('comparative negligence'), if any, of plaintiff. A defendant whose conduct is determined to be less than fifty percent of the total fault shall only be liable for that percentage of the indivisible damages determined by the jury or trier of fact.
(B) Apportionment of percentages of fault among defendants is to be determined as specified in subsection (C).
(C) The jury, or the court if there is no jury, shall:
(1) specify the amount of damages;
(2) determine the percentage of fault, if any, of plaintiff and the amount of recoverable damages under applicable rules concerning 'comparative negligence'; and
(3) upon a motion by at least one defendant, where there is a verdict under items (1) and (2) above for damages against two or more defendants for the same indivisible injury, death, or damage to property, specify in a separate verdict under the procedures described at subitem (b) below the percentage of liability that proximately caused the indivisible injury, death, damage to property, or economic loss from tortious conduct, as determined by item (1) above, that is attributable to each defendant whose actions are a proximate cause of the indivisible injury, death, or damage to property. In determining the percentage attributable to each defendant, any fault of the plaintiff, as determined by item (2) above, will be included so that the total of the percentages of fault attributed to the plaintiff and to the defendants must be one hundred percent.
(a) For this purpose, the court may determine that two or more persons are to be treated as a single party. Such treatment must be used where two or more defendants acted in concert or where, by reason of agency, employment, or other legal relationship, a defendant is vicariously responsible for the conduct of another defendant.
(b) After the initial verdict awarding damages is entered and before the special verdict on percentages of liability is rendered, the parties shall be allowed oral argument, with the length of such argument subject to the discretion of the trial judge, on the determination of the percentage attributable to each defendant. However, no additional evidence shall be allowed.
(D) A defendant shall retain the right to assert that another potential tortfeasor, whether or not a party, contributed to the alleged injury or damages and/or may be liable for any or all of the damages alleged by any other party.
(E) Notwithstanding the application of this section, setoff from any settlement received from any potential tortfeasor prior to the verdict shall be applied in proportion to each defendant's percentage of liability as determined pursuant to subsection (C).
(F) This section does not apply to a defendant whose conduct is determined to be wilful, wanton, reckless, grossly negligent, or intentional or conduct involving the use, sale, or possession of alcohol or drugs."
SECTION 7. Section 34-31-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 34-31-20. (A) In all cases of accounts stated and in all cases wherein any sum or sums of money shall be ascertained and, being due, shall draw interest according to law, the legal interest shall be at the rate of eight and three-fourths percent per annum.
(B) All A money decrees decree and judgments or judgment of courts a court enrolled or entered shall must draw interest according to law. The legal rate of interest is at the rate of twelve percent a year equal to the prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal published for each calendar year for which the damages are awarded, plus four percentage points, compounded annually. The South Carolina Supreme Court shall issue an order by January 15 of each year confirming the annual prime rate. This section applies to all judgments entered on or after July 1, 2005. For judgments entered between July 1, 2005, and January 14, 2006, the legal rate of interest shall be the first prime rate as published in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal after January 1, 2005, plus four percentage points."
SECTION 8. Section 36-2-803 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 36-2-803. (1)(A) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person who acts directly or by an agent as to a cause of action arising from the person's:
(a)(1) transacting any business in this State;
(b)(2) contracting to supply services or things in the State;
(c)(3) commission of a tortious act in whole or in part in this State;
(d)(4) causing tortious injury or death in this State by an act or omission outside this State if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this State; or
(e)(5) having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in this State; or
(f)(6) contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this State at the time of contracting; or
(g)(7) entry into a contract to be performed in whole or in part by either party in this State; or
(h)(8) production, manufacture, or distribution of goods with the reasonable expectation that those goods are to be used or consumed in this State and are so used or consumed.
(2)(B) When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him, and such action, if brought in this State, shall not be subject to the provisions of Section 15-7-100 (3)."
SECTION 9. Article 1, Chapter 5, Title 39 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
"Section 39-5-39. Notwithstanding another provision of law, it is an unlawful trade practice, pursuant to Section 39-5-20, for an attorney to advertise his services in this State in a false, deceptive, or misleading manner including, but not limited to, the use of a nickname that creates an unreasonable expectation of results."
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY
REVIEW OF INSURER'S REDUCTION OF PREMIUMS TO REFLECT SAVINGS
SECTION 10. The Department of Insurance shall review data reported on annual statements by liability insurers, including, but not limited to, paid claims, reserves, loss adjustment expenses, and such additional data as the department may require by promulgation of bulletin, to determine savings related to a decrease in litigation and claims paid pursuant to litigation after the effective date of this act. The department may require special reports from insurers to determine if savings are realized as a result of the provisions of this act. The department shall compile a report of savings realized and submit it for General Assembly review upon request. Costs or expenses associated with the compilation of this report of savings shall be paid by the insurers pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 13 of Title 38. The Department of Insurance shall review premium and losses by line of insurance to determine if appropriate adjustments have been made based upon the department estimates of savings realized pursuant to the provisions of this act.
MISCELLANEOUS
SECTION 11. If any provision of SECTION 6 or its application to any person is held invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional, this validity, unenforceability, or unconstitutionality shall negate the other provisions or applications of SECTION 6, and to this end, the provisions of SECTION 6 are not severable.
SECTION 12. Sections 15-36-20, 15-36-30, 15-36-40, 15-36-50, and 58-23-90 of the 1976 Code are repealed.
SECTION 13. The provisions of this act do not affect any right, privilege, or provision of the South Carolina Tort Claims Act as contained in Chapter 78, Title 15 of the 1976 Code of South Carolina or the South Carolina Solicitation of Charitable Funds Act as contained in Chapter 56 of Title 33.
SECTION 14. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release, or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.
SECTION 15. Except as provided in SECTION 11, if any section, subsection, item, subitem, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this act is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such holding shall not affect the constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this act, the General Assembly hereby declaring that it would have passed this act, and each and every section, subsection, item, subitem, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, items, subitems, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words hereof may be declared to be unconstitutional, invalid, or otherwise ineffective.
SECTION 16. Upon approval by the Governor:
(1) SECTIONS 1, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 take effect;
(2) SECTION 2 takes effect on July 1, 2005, and applies to improvements to real property for which certificates of occupancy are issued by a county or municipality or completion of a final inspection by the responsible local building official after the effective date;
(3) SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 8, and 12 take effect July 1, 2005, and shall only apply to causes of action arising on or after that date;
(4) SECTION 6 takes effect July 1, 2005, and shall only apply to causes of action arising on or after that date except for causes of actions relating to construction torts which would take effect on July 1, 2005, and apply to improvements to real property that first obtain substantial completion on or after July 1, 2005. For purposes of this section, an improvement to real property obtains substantial completion when a municipality or county issues a certificate of occupancy in the case of new construction, or completes a final inspection in the case of improvements to existing improvements; and
(5) SECTION 9 takes effect but shall only apply to advertisements appearing after that date. /
Amend title to conform
Senator McCONNELL explained the amendment.
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Alexander Anderson Bryant Campsen Cleary Courson Cromer Drummond Elliott Fair Gregory Grooms Hawkins Hayes Hutto Jackson Knotts Land Leatherman Lourie Malloy Martin Matthews McConnell McGill Mescher Moore O'Dell Patterson Peeler Pinckney Rankin Reese Richardson Ritchie Ryberg Scott Setzler Sheheen Short Smith, J. Verne Thomas Verdin Williams
Ford
Leventis
The amendment was adopted.
There being no further amendments, the Bill was read the second time, passed and ordered to a third reading.
On motion of Senator McCONNELL, with unanimous consent, H. 3008 was ordered to receive a third reading on Wednesday, March 9, 2005.
I did not vote for this Bill because I believe certain provisions inappropriately place the burden of civil wrongs on the victim. Further, the parties who, "but for their actions" there would not have been injury or damage to the victim, will find ways to avoid paying for their wrongdoing using the provisions of this Bill.
I supported many facets of the Bill, such as a measured reduction in the statute of repose, as well as a change in the rules dealing with venue. These changes could have and would have been made without the dangerous changes in provisions dealing with liability.
I believe the provisions of this Bill will be used by large, out-of-state mega-corporations to avoid payments to the victims who suffer because of the practices of these mega-corporations. I believe in-state, small business will find themselves bearing a disproportionate share of the burden for any payments required by the courts to be made to injured parties. Since most of the plaintiffs in civil actions in South Carolina are small businesses (according to information offered during the debate), I believe this Bill will materially and adversely impact small business in South Carolina because they will not be able to recover for actual losses they suffer at the hands of out-of-state corporations.
Pursuant to a prior motion by Senator McCONNELL, the Senate resumed consideration of S. 345.
S. 345 (Word version) -- Senator Martin: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 15, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO CIVIL REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 41, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IN AN ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, OR WRONGFUL DEATH, THE LIABILITY FOR EACH DEFENDANT IS SEVERAL ONLY AND MUST BE ALLOCATED TO THE DEFENDANTS BASED ON EACH DEFENDANT'S PERCENTAGE OF FAULT, TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING THE PERCENTAGES OF FAULT, AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS FOR INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS CONDUCT; TO AMEND SECTION 15-3-640, RELATING TO THE STATUTE OF REPOSE FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS, SO AS TO REDUCE THE STATUTE OF REPOSE FROM THIRTEEN TO SEVEN YEARS AND TO DEFINE "SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION"; TO AMEND SECTION 15-7-30, RELATING TO VENUE FOR A CIVIL ACTION, SO AS TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE PROPER VENUE; TO AMEND SECTION 15-7-100, RELATING TO A CHANGE OF VENUE OF A CIVIL ACTION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHEN VENUE IS CHANGED, AN ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING PROPER VENUE; TO AMEND SECTION 15-36-10, RELATING TO FRIVOLOUS CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, SO AS TO ADOPT THE REASONABLE ATTORNEY STANDARD FOR CIVIL FILINGS BY ALL LITIGANTS AND TO REQUIRE THE REPORTING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ARTICLE; TO AMEND SECTION 34-31-20, RELATING TO POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT THE PRIME RATE PLUS FOUR PERCENT; TO AMEND SECTION 36-2-803, RELATING TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS, SO AS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT JURISDICTION UNDER THIS SECTION PRECLUDES A CHANGE OF VENUE; BY ADDING SECTION 39-5-39, SO AS TO MAKE IT AN UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICE FOR AN ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE HIS SERVICES IN A FALSE, DECEPTIVE, OR MISLEADING WAY, INCLUDING THE USE OF A NICKNAME THAT CREATES AN UNREASONABLE EXPECTATION OF RESULTS; TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, RELATING TO INSURANCE SAVINGS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE MUST REVIEW DATA REPORTED BY LIABILITY INSURERS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF ANY SAVINGS ARE REALIZED AS A RESULT OF A DECREASE IN LITIGATION OR CLAIMS PAID AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT; TO REPEAL SECTIONS 15-36-20, 15-36-30, 15-36-40, AND 15-36-50, RELATING TO FRIVOLOUS CIVIL PROCEEDINGS; AND TO REPEAL SECTION 58-23-90, RELATING TO THE PROPER VENUE TO BRING AN ACTION AGAINST A LICENSED MOTOR CARRIER.
Pursuant to a prior motion by Senator McCONNELL, moved to recommit the Bill to the Committee on Judiciary.
There was no objection.
The Bill was recommitted to the Committee on Judiciary.
At 4:20 P.M., on motion of Senator McCONNELL, the Senate adjourned to meet tomorrow at 2:00 P.M.
This web page was last updated on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 at 1:18 P.M.