- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-481
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMON SENSE PRODUCT LIABILITY LEGAL REFORM ACT OF 1996
_______
March 14, 1996.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Hyde, from the committee of conference, submitted the following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 956]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
956), to establish legal standards and procedures for product
liability litigation, and for other purposes, having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment
as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Common
Sense Product Liability Legal Reform Act of 1996''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
TITLE I--PRODUCT LIABILITY REFORM
Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Applicability; preemption.
Sec. 103. Liability rules applicable to product sellers, renters, and
lessors.
Sec. 104. Defense based on claimant's use of intoxicating alcohol or
drugs.
Sec. 105. Misuse or alteration.
Sec. 106. Uniform time limitations on liability.
Sec. 107. Alternative dispute resolution procedures.
Sec. 108. Uniform standards for award of punitive damages.
Sec. 109. Liability for certain claims relating to death.
Sec. 110. Several liability for noneconomic loss.
Sec. 111. Workers' compensation subrogation.
TITLE II--BIOMATERIALS ACCESS ASSURANCE
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Findings.
Sec. 203. Definitions.
Sec. 204. General requirements; applicability; preemption.
Sec. 205. Liability of biomaterials suppliers.
Sec. 206. Procedures for dismissal of civil actions against biomaterials
suppliers.
TITLE III--LIMITATIONS ON APPLICABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 301. Effect of court of appeals decisions.
Sec. 302. Federal cause of action precluded.
Sec. 303. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) our Nation is overly litigious, the civil
justice system is overcrowded, sluggish, and
excessively costly and the costs of lawsuits, both
direct and indirect, are inflicting serious and
unnecessary injury on the national economy;
(2) excessive, unpredictable, and often arbitrary
damage awards and unfair allocations of liability have
a direct and undesirable effect on interstate commerce
by increasing the cost and decreasing the availability
of goods and services;
(3) the rules of law governing product liability
actions, damage awards, and allocations of liability
have evolved inconsistently within and among the
States, resulting in a complex, contradictory, and
uncertain regime that is inequitable to both plaintiffs
and defendants and unduly burdens interstate commerce;
(4) as a result of excessive, unpredictable, and
often arbitrary damage awards and unfair allocations of
liability, consumers have been adversely affected
through the withdrawal of products, producers,
services, and service providers from the marketplace,
and from excessive liability costs passed on to them
through higher prices;
(5) excessive, unpredictable, and often arbitrary
damage awards and unfair allocations of liability
jeopardize the financial well-being of many individuals
as well as entire industries, particularly the Nation's
small businesses and adversely affects government and
taxpayers;
(6) the excessive costs of the civil justice system
undermine the ability of American companies to compete
internationally, and serve to decrease the number of
jobs and the amount of productive capital in the
national economy;
(7) the unpredictability of damage awards is
inequitable to both plaintiffs and defendants and has
added considerably to the high cost of liability
insurance, making it difficult for producers,
consumers, volunteers, and nonprofit organizations to
protect themselves from liability with any degree of
confidence and at a reasonable cost;
(8) because of the national scope of the problems
created by the defects in the civil justice system, it
is not possible for the States to enact laws that fully
and effectively respond to those problems;
(9) it is the constitutional role of the national
government to remove barriers to interstate commerce
and to protect due process rights; and
(10) there is a need to restore rationality,
certainty, and fairness to the civil justice system in
order to protect against excessive, arbitrary, and
uncertain damage awards and to reduce the volume,
costs, and delay of litigation.
(b) Purposes.--Based upon the powers contained in Article
I, Section 8, Clause 3 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution, the purposes of this Act are to
promote the free flow of goods and services and to lessen
burdens on interstate commerce and to uphold constitutionally
protected due process rights by--
(1) establishing certain uniform legal principles
of product liability which provide a fair balance among
the interests of product users, manufacturers, and
product sellers;
(2) placing reasonable limits on damages over and
above the actual damages suffered by a claimant;
(3) ensuring the fair allocation of liability in
civil actions;
(4) reducing the unacceptable costs and delays of
our civil justice system caused by excessive litigation
which harm both plaintiffs and defendants; and
(5) establishing greater fairness, rationality, and
predictability in the civil justice system.
TITLE I--PRODUCT LIABILITY REFORM
SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title--
(1) Actual malice.--The term ``actual malice''
means specific intent to cause serious physical injury,
illness, disease, death, or damage to property.
(2) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any
person who brings an action covered by this title and
any person on whose behalf such an action is brought.
If such an action is brought through or on behalf of an
estate, the term includes the claimant's decedent. If
such an action is brought through or on behalf of a
minor or incompetent, the term includes the claimant's
legal guardian.
(3) Claimant's benefits.--The term ``claimant's
benefits'' means the amount paid to an employee as
workers' compensation benefits.
(4) Clear and convincing evidence.--The term
``clear and convincing evidence'' is that measure or
degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the
trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the
truth of the allegations sought to be established. The
level of proof required to satisfy such standard is
more than that required under preponderance of the
evidence, but less than that required for proof beyond
a reasonable doubt.
(5) Commercial loss.--The term ``commercial loss''
means any loss or damage solely to a product itself,
loss relating to a dispute over its value, or
consequential economic loss, the recovery of which is
governed by the Uniform Commercial Code or analogous
State commercial or contract law.
(6) Compensatory damages.--The term ``compensatory
damages'' means damages awarded for economic and non-
economic loss.
(7) Durable good.--The term ``durable good'' means
any product, or any component of any such product,
which has a normal life expectancy of 3 or more years,
or is of a character subject to allowance for
depreciation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
and which is--
(A) used in a trade or business;
(B) held for the production of income; or
(C) sold or donated to a governmental or
private entity for the production of goods,
training, demonstration, or any other similar
purpose.
(8) Economic loss.--The term ``economic loss''
means any pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including
the loss of earnings or other benefits related to
employment, medical expense loss, replacement services
loss, loss due to death, burial costs, and loss of
business or employment opportunities) to the extent
recovery for such loss is allowed under applicable
State law.
(9) Harm.--The term ``harm'' means any physical
injury, illness, disease, or death or damage to
property caused by a product. The term does not include
commercial loss.
(10) Insurer.--The term ``insurer'' means the
employer of a claimant if the employer is self-insured
or if the employer is not self-insured, the workers'
compensation insurer of the employer.
(11) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer''
means--
(A) any person who is engaged in a business
to produce, create, make, or construct any
product (or component part of a product) and
who (i) designs or formulates the product (or
component part of the product), or (ii) has
engaged another person to design or formulate
the product (or component part of the product);
(B) a product seller, but only with respect
to those aspects of a product (or component
part of a product) which are created or
affected when, before placing the product in
the stream of commerce, the product seller
produces, creates, makes or constructs and
designs, or formulates, or has engaged another
person to design or formulate, an aspect of the
product (or component part of the product) made
by another person; or
(C) any product seller not described in
subparagraph (B) which holds itself out as a
manufacturer to the user of the product.
(12) Noneconomic loss.--The term ``noneconomic
loss'' means subjective, nonmonetary loss resulting
from harm, including pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society
and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to
reputation, and humiliation.
(13) Person.--The term ``person'' means any
individual, corporation, company, association, firm,
partnership, society, joint stock company, or any other
entity (including any governmental entity).
(14) Product.--
(A) In general.--The term ``product'' means
any object, substance, mixture, or raw material
in a gaseous, liquid, or solid state which--
(i) is capable of delivery itself
or as an assembled whole, in a mixed or
combined state, or as a component part
or ingredient;
(ii) is produced for introduction
into trade or commerce;
(iii) has intrinsic economic value;
and
(iv) is intended for sale or lease
to persons for commercial or personal
use.
(B) Exclusion.--The term does not include--
(i) tissue, organs, blood, and
blood products used for therapeutic or
medical purposes, except to the extent
that such tissue, organs, blood, and
blood products (or the provision
thereof) are subject, under applicable
State law, to a standard of liability
other than negligence; or
(ii) electricity, water delivered
by a utility, natural gas, or steam
except to the extent that electricity,
water delivered by a utility, natural
gas, or steam, is subject, under
applicable State law, to a standard of
liability other than negligence.
(15) Product liability action.--The term ``product
liability action'' means a civil action brought on any
theory for harm caused by a product.
(16) Product seller.--
(A) In general.--The term ``product
seller'' means a person who in the course of a
business conducted for that purpose--
(i) sells, distributes, rents,
leases, prepares, blends, packages,
labels, or otherwise is involved in
placing a product in the stream of
commerce; or
(ii) installs, repairs,
refurbishes, reconditions, or maintains
the harm-causing aspect of the product.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``product seller''
does not include--
(i) a seller or lessor of real
property;
(ii) a provider of professional
services in any case in which the sale
or use of a product is incidental to
the transaction and the essence of the
transaction is the furnishing of
judgment, skill, or services; or
(iii) any person who--
(I) acts in only a
financial capacity with respect
to the sale of a product; or
(II) leases a product under
a lease arrangement in which
the lessor does not initially
select the leased product and
does not during the lease term
ordinarily control the daily
operations and maintenance of
the product.
(17) Punitive damages.--The term ``punitive
damages'' means damages awarded against any person or
entity to punish or deter such person or entity, or
others, from engaging in similar behavior in the
future.
(18) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of
the United States, the District of Columbia,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana
Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
any other territory or possession of the United States
or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing.
SEC. 102. APPLICABILITY; PREEMPTION.
(a) Preemption.--
(1) In general.--This Act governs any product
liability action brought in any State or Federal court
on any theory for harm caused by a product.
(2) Actions excluded.--A civil action brought for
commercial loss shall be governed only by applicable
commercial or contract law.
(b) Relationship to State Law.--This title supersedes State
law only to the extent that State law applies to an issue
covered by this title. Any issue that is not governed by this
title, including any standard of liability applicable to a
manufacturer, shall be governed by otherwise applicable State
or Federal law.
(c) Effect on Other Law.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to--
(1) waive or affect any defense of sovereign
immunity asserted by any State under any law;
(2) supersede or alter any Federal law;
(3) waive or affect any defense of sovereign
immunity asserted by the United States;
(4) affect the applicability of any provision of
chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code;
(5) preempt State choice-of-law rules with respect
to claims brought by a foreign nation or a citizen of a
foreign nation;
(6) affect the right of any court to transfer venue
or to apply the law of a foreign nation or to dismiss a
claim of a foreign nation or of a citizen of a foreign
nation on the ground of inconvenient forum; or
(7) supersede or modify any statutory or common
law, including any law providing for an action to abate
a nuisance, that authorizes a person to institute an
action for civil damages or civil penalties, cleanup
costs, injunctions, restitution, cost recovery,
punitive damages, or any other form of relief for
remediation of the environment (as defined in section
101(8) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601(8)).
SEC. 103. LIABILITY RULES APPLICABLE TO PRODUCT SELLERS, RENTERS, AND
LESSORS.
(a) General Rule.--
(1) In general.--In any product liability action, a
product seller other than a manufacturer shall be
liable to a claimant only if the claimant establishes--
(A) that--
(i) the product that allegedly
caused the harm that is the subject of
the complaint was sold, rented, or
leased by the product seller;
(ii) the product seller failed to
exercise reasonable care with respect
to the product; and
(iii) the failure to exercise
reasonable care was a proximate cause
of harm to the claimant;
(B) that--
(i) the product seller made an
express warranty applicable to the
product that allegedly caused the harm
that is the subject of the complaint,
independent of any express warranty
made by a manufacturer as to the same
product;
(ii) the product failed to conform
to the warranty; and
(iii) the failure of the product to
conform to the warranty caused harm to
the claimant; or
(C) that--
(i) the product seller engaged in
intentional wrongdoing, as determined
under applicable State law; and
(ii) such intentional wrongdoing
was a proximate cause of the harm that
is the subject of the complaint.
(2) Reasonable opportunity for inspection.--For
purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(ii), a product seller
shall not be considered to have failed to exercise
reasonable care with respect to a product based upon an
alleged failure to inspect the product--
(A) if the failure occurred because there
was no reasonable opportunity to inspect the
product; or
(B) if the inspection, in the exercise of
reasonable care, would not have revealed the
aspect of the product which allegedly caused
the claimant's harm.
(b) Special Rule.--
(1) In general.--A product seller shall be deemed
to be liable as a manufacturer of a product for harm
caused by the product if--
(A) the manufacturer is not subject to
service of process under the laws of any State
in which the action may be brought; or
(B) the court determines that the claimant
would be unable to enforce a judgment against
the manufacturer.
(2) Statute of limitations.--For purposes of this
subsection only, the statute of limitations applicable
to claims asserting liability of a product seller as a
manufacturer shall be tolled from the date of the
filing of a complaint against the manufacturer to the
date that judgment is entered against the manufacturer.
(c) Rented or Leased Products.--
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
person engaged in the business of renting or leasing a
product (other than a person excluded from the
definition of product seller under section 101(16)(B))
shall be subject to liability in a product liability
action under subsection (a), but any person engaged in
the business of renting or leasing a product shall not
be liable to a claimant for the tortious act of another
solely by reason of ownership of such product.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), and for
determining the applicability of this title to any
person subject to paragraph (1), the term ``product
liability action'' means a civil action brought on any
theory for harm caused by a product or product use.
(d) Actions for Negligent Entrustment.--A civil action for
negligent entrustment shall not be subject to the provisions of
this section, but shall be subject to any applicable State law.
SEC. 104. DEFENSE BASED ON CLAIMANT'S USE OF INTOXICATING ALCOHOL OR
DRUGS.
(a) General Rule.--In any product liability action, it
shall be a complete defense to such action if--
(1) the claimant was intoxicated or was under the
influence of intoxicating alcohol or any drug when the
accident or other event which resulted in such
claimant's harm occurred; and
(2) the claimant, as a result of the influence of
the alcohol or drug, was more than 50 percent
responsible for such accident or other event.
(b) Construction.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
(1) the determination of whether a person was
intoxicated or was under the influence of intoxicating
alcohol or any drug shall be made pursuant to
applicable State law; and
(2) the term ``drug'' means any controlled
substance as defined in the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 802(6)) that was not legally prescribed for
use by the claimant or that was taken by the claimant
other than in accordance with the terms of a lawfully
issued prescription.
SEC. 105. MISUSE OR ALTERATION.
(a) General Rule.--
(1) In general.--In a product liability action, the
damages for which a defendant is otherwise liable under
Federal or State law shall be reduced by the percentage
of responsibility for the claimant's harm attributable
to misuse or alteration of a product by any person if
the defendant establishes that such percentage of the
claimant's harm was proximately caused by a use or
alteration of a product--
(A) in violation of, or contrary to, a
defendant's express warnings or instructions if
the warnings or instructions are adequate as
determined pursuant to applicable State law; or
(B) involving a risk of harm which was
known or should have been known by the ordinary
person who uses or consumes the product with
the knowledge common to the class of persons
who used or would be reasonably anticipated to
use the product.
(2) Use intended by a manufacturer is not misuse or
alteration.--For the purposes of this Act, a use of a
product that is intended by the manufacturer of the
product does not constitute a misuse or alteration of
the product.
(b) Workplace Injury.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), and
except as otherwise provided in section 111, the damages for
which a defendant is otherwise liable under State law shall not
be reduced by the percentage of responsibility for the
claimant's harm attributable to misuse or alteration of the
product by the claimant's employer or any coemployee who is
immune from suit by the claimant pursuant to the State law
applicable to workplace injuries.
SEC. 106. UNIFORM TIME LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY.
(a) Statute of Limitations.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2) and subsection (b), a product liability action may
be filed not later than 2 years after the date on which
the claimant discovered or, in the exercise of
reasonable care, should have discovered--
(A) the harm that is the subject of the
action; and
(B) the cause of the harm.
(2) Exception.--A person with a legal disability
(as determined under applicable law) may file a product
liability action not later than 2 years after the date
on which the person ceases to have the legal
disability.
(b) Statute of Repose.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3),
no product liability action that is subject to this Act
concerning a product, that is a durable good, alleged
to have caused harm (other than toxic harm) may be
filed after the 15-year period beginning at the time of
delivery of the product to the first purchaser or
lessee.
(2) State law.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if
pursuant to an applicable State law, an action
described in such paragraph is required to be filed
during a period that is shorter than the 15-year period
specified in such paragraph, the State law shall apply
with respect to such period.
(3) Exceptions.--
(A) A motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or
train, that is used primarily to transport
passengers for hire, shall not be subject to
this subsection.
(B) Paragraph (1) does not bar a product
liability action against a defendant who made
an express warranty in writing as to the safety
or life expectancy of the specific product
involved which was longer than 15 years, but it
will apply at the expiration of that warranty.
(C) Paragraph (1) does not affect the
limitations period established by the General
Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (49 U.S.C.
40101 note).
(c) Transitional Provision Relating to Extension of Period
for Bringing Certain Actions.--If any provision of subsection
(a) or (b) shortens the period during which a product liability
action could be otherwise brought pursuant to another provision
of law, the claimant may, notwithstanding subsections (a) and
(b), bring the product liability action not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 107. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES.
(a) Service of Offer.--A claimant or a defendant in a
product liability action may, not later than 60 days after the
service of--
(1) the initial complaint; or
(2) the applicable deadline for a responsive
pleading;
whichever is later, serve upon an adverse party an offer to
proceed pursuant to any voluntary, nonbinding alternative
dispute resolution procedure established or recognized under
the law of the State in which the product liability action is
brought or under the rules of the court in which such action is
maintained.
(b) Written Notice of Acceptance or Rejection.--Except as
provided in subsection (c), not later than 10 days after the
service of an offer to proceed under subsection (a), an offeree
shall file a written notice of acceptance or rejection of the
offer.
(c) Extension.--The court may, upon motion by an offeree
made prior to the expiration of the 10-day period specified in
subsection (b), extend the period for filling a written notice
under such subsection for a period of not more than 60 days
after the date of expiration of the period specified in
subsection (b). Discovery may be permitted during such period.
SEC. 108. UNIFORM STANDARDS FOR AWARD OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
(a) General Rule.--Punitive damages may, to the extent
permitted by applicable State law, be awarded against a
defendant if the claimant establishes by clear and convincing
evidence that conduct carried out by the defendant with a
conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of
others was the proximate cause of the harm that is the subject
of the action in any product liability action.
(b) Limitation on Amount.--
(1) In general.--The amount of punitive damages
that may be awarded in an action described in
subsection (a) may not exceed the greater of--
(A) 2 times the sum of the amount awarded
to the claimant for economic loss and
noneconomic loss; or
(B) $250,000.
(2) Special rule.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1),
in any action described in subsection (a) against an
individual whose net worth does not exceed $500,000 or
against an owner of an unincorporated business, or any
partnership, corporation, association, unit of local
government, or organization which has fewer that 25
full-time employees, the punitive damages shall not
exceed the lesser of--
(A) 2 times the sum of the amount awarded
to the claimant for economic loss and
noneconomic loss; or
(B) $250,000.
For the purpose of determining the applicability of
this paragraph to a corporation, the number of
employees of a subsidiary or wholly-owned corporation
shall include all employees of a parent or sister
corporation.
(3) Exception for insufficient award in cases of
egregious conduct.--
(A) Determination by court.--If the court
makes a determination, after considering each
of the factors in subparagraph (B), that the
application of paragraph (1) would result in an
award of punitive damages that is insufficient
to punish the egregious conduct of the
defendant against whom the punitive damages are
to be awarded or to deter such conduct in the
future, the court shall determine the
additional amount of punitive damages (referred
to in this paragraph as the ``additional
amount'') in excess of the amount determined in
accordance with paragraph (1) to be awarded
against the defendant in a separate proceeding
in accordance with this paragraph.
(B) Factors for consideration.--In any
proceeding under paragraph (A), the court shall
consider--
(i) the extent to which the
defendant acted with actual malice;
(ii) the likelihood that serious
harm would arise from the conduct of
the defendant;
(iii) the degree of the awareness
of the defendant of that likelihood;
(iv) the profitability of the
misconduct to the defendant;
(v) the duration of the misconduct
and any concurrent or subsequent
concealment of the conduct by the
defendant;
(vi) the attitude and conduct of
the defendant upon the discovery of the
misconduct and whether the misconduct
has terminated;
(vii) the financial condition of
the defendant; and
(viii) the cumulative deterrent
effect of other losses, damages, and
punishment suffered by the defendant as
a result of the misconduct, reducing
the amount of punitive damages on the
basis of the economic impact and
severity of all measures to which the
defendant has been or may be subjected,
including--
(I) compensatory and
punitive damage awards to
similarly situated claimants;
(II) the adverse economic
effect of stigma or loss of
reputation;
(III) civil fines and
criminal and administrative
penalties; and
(IV) stop sale, cease and
desist, and other remedial or
enforcement orders.
(C) Requirements for awarding additional
amount.--If the court awards an additional
amount pursuant to this subsection, the court
shall state its reasons for setting the amount
of the additional amount in findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
(D) Preemption.--This section does not
create a cause of action for punitive damages
and does not preempt or supersede any State or
Federal law to the extent that such law would
further limit the award of punitive damages.
Nothing in this subsection shall modify or
reduce the ability of courts to order
remittiturs.
(4) Application by court.--This subsection shall be
applied by the court and application of this subsection
shall not be disclosed to the jury. Nothing in this
subsection shall authorize the court to enter an award
of punitive damages in excess of the jury's initial
award of punitive damages.
(c) Bifurcation at Request of Any Party.--
(1) In general.--At the request of any party the
trier of fact in any action that is subject to this
section shall consider in a separate proceeding, held
subsequent to the determination of the amount of
compensatory damages, whether punitive damages are to
be awarded for the harm that is the subject of the
action and the amount of the award.
(2) Inadmissibility of evidence relative only to a
claim of punitive damages in a proceeding concerning
compensatory damages.--If any party requests a separate
proceeding under paragraph (1), in a proceeding to
determine whether the claimant may be awarded
compensatory damages, any evidence, argument, or
contention that is relevant only to the claim of
punitive damages, as determined by applicable State
law, shall be inadmissible.
SEC. 109. LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN CLAIMS RELATING TO DEATH.
In any civil action in which the alleged harm to the
claimant is death and, as of the effective date of this Act,
the applicable State law provides, or has been construed to
provide, for damages only punitive in nature, a defendant may
be liable for any such damages without regard to section 108,
but only during such time as the State law so provides. This
section shall cease to be effective September 1, 1996.
SEC. 110. SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR NONECONOMIC LOSS.
(a) General Rule.--In a product liability action, the
liability of each defendant for noneconomic loss shall be
several only and shall not be joint.
(b) Amount of Liability.--
(1) In general.--Each defendant shall be liable
only for the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to
the defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of
responsibility of the defendant (determined in
accordance with paragraph (2)) for the harm to the
claimant with respect to which the defendant is liable.
The court shall render a separate judgment against each
defendant in an amount determined pursuant to the
preceding sentence.
(2) Percentage of responsibility.--For purposes of
determining the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to
a defendant under this section, the trier of fact shall
determine the percentage of responsibility of each
person responsible for the claimant's harm, whether or
not such person is a party to the action.
SEC. 111. WORKERS' COMPENSATION SUBROGATION.
(a) General Rule.--
(1) Right of subrogation.--
(A) In general.--An insurer shall have a
right of subrogation against a manufacturer or
product seller to recover any claimant's
benefits relating to harm that is the subject
of a product liability action that is subject
to this Act.
(B) Written notification.--To assert a
right of subrogation under subparagraph (A),
the insurer shall provide written notice to the
court in which the product liability action is
brought.
(C) Insurer not required to be a party.--An
insurer shall not be required to be a necessary
and proper party in a product liability action
covered under subparagraph (A).
(2) Settlements and other legal proceedings.--
(A) In general.--In any proceeding relating
to harm or settlement with the manufacturer or
product seller by a claimant who files a
product liability action that is subject to
this Act, an insurer may participate to assert
a right of subrogation for claimant's benefits
with respect to any payment made by the
manufacturer or product seller by reason of
such harm, without regard to whether the
payment is made--
(i) as part of a settlement;
(ii) in satisfaction of judgment;
(iii) as consideration for a
covenant not to sue; or
(iv) in another manner.
(B) Written notification.--Except as
provided in subparagraph (C), an employee shall
not make any settlement with or accept any
payment from the manufacturer or product seller
without written notification to the insurer.
(C) Exemption.--Subparagraph (B) shall not
apply in any case in which the insurer has been
compensated for the full amount of the
claimant's benefits.
(3) Harm resulting from action of employer or
coemployee.--
(A) In general.--If, with respect to a
product liability action that is subject to
this Act, the manufacturer or product seller
attempts to persuade the trier of fact that the
harm to the claimant was caused by the fault of
the employer of the claimant or any coemployee
of the claimant, the issue of that fault shall
be submitted to the trier of fact, but only
after the manufacturer or product seller has
provided timely written notice to the insurer.
(B) Rights of insurer.--
(i) In general.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, with
respect to an issue of fault submitted
to a trier of fact pursuant to
subparagraph (A), an insurer shall, in
the same manner as any party in the
action (even if the insurer is not a
named party in the action), have the
right to--
(I) appear;
(II) be represented;
(III) introduce evidence;
(IV) cross-examine adverse
witnesses; and
(V) present arguments to
the trier of fact.
(ii) Last issue.--The issue of harm
resulting from an action of an employer
or coemployee shall be the last issue
that is submitted to the trier of fact.
(C) Reduction of damages.--If the trier of
fact finds by clear and convincing evidence
that the harm to the claimant that is the
subject of the product liability action was
caused by the fault of the employer or a
coemployee of the claimant--
(i) the court shall reduce by the
amount of the claimant's benefits--
(I) the damages awarded
against the manufacturer or
product seller; and
(II) any corresponding
insurer's subrogation lien; and
(ii) the manufacturer or product
seller shall have no further right by
way of contribution or otherwise
against the employer.
(D) Certain rights of subrogation not
affected.--Notwithstanding a finding by the
trier of fact described in subparagraph (C),
the insurer shall not lose any right of
subrogation related to any--
(i) intentional tort committed
against the claimant by a coemployee;
or
(ii) act committed by a coemployee
outside the scope of normal work
practices.
(b) Attorney's Fees.--If, in a product liability action
that is subject to this section, the court finds that harm to a
claimant was not caused by the fault of the employer or a
coemployee of the claimant, the manufacturer or product seller
shall reimburse the insurer for reasonable attorney's fees and
court costs incurred by the insurer in the action, as
determined by the court.
TITLE II--BIOMATERIALS ACCESS ASSURANCE
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Biomaterials Access
Assurance Act of 1996''.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) each year millions of citizens of the United
States depend on the availability of lifesaving or life
enhancing medical devices, many of which are
permanently implantable within the human body;
(2) a continued supply of raw materials and
component parts is necessary for the invention,
development, improvement, and maintenance of the supply
of the devices;
(3) most of the medical devices are made with raw
materials and component parts that--
(A) are not designed or manufactured
specifically for use in medical devices; and
(B) come in contact with internal human
tissue;
(4) the raw materials and component parts also are
used in a variety of nonmedical products;
(5) because small quantities of the raw materials
and component parts are used for medical devices, sales
of raw materials and component parts for medical
devices constitute an extremely small portion of the
overall market for the raw materials and medical
devices;
(6) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), manufacturers of medical
devices are required to demonstrate that the medical
devices are safe and effective, including demonstrating
that the products are properly designed and have
adequate warnings or instructions;
(7) notwithstanding the fact that raw materials and
component parts suppliers do not design, produce, or
test a final medical device, the suppliers have been
the subject of actions alleging inadequate--
(A) design and testing of medical devices
manufactured with materials or parts supplied
by the suppliers; or
(B) warnings related to the use of such
medical devices;
(8) even though suppliers of raw materials and
component parts have very rarely been held liable in
such actions, such suppliers have ceased supplying
certain raw materials and component parts for use in
medical devices because the costs associated with
litigation in order to ensure a favorable judgment for
the suppliers far exceeds the total potential sales
revenues from sales by such suppliers to the medical
device industry;
(9) unless alternate sources of supply can be
found, the unavailability of raw materials and
component parts for medical devices will lead to
unavailability of lifesaving and life-enhancing medical
devices;
(10) because other suppliers of the raw materials
and component parts in foreign nations are refusing to
sell raw materials or component parts for use in
manufacturing certain medical devices in the United
States, the prospects for development of new sources of
supply for the full range of threatened raw materials
and component parts for medical devices are remote;
(11) it is unlikely that the small market for such
raw materials and component parts in the United States
could support the large investment needed to develop
new suppliers of such raw materials and component
parts;
(12) attempts to develop such new suppliers would
raise the cost of medical devices;
(13) courts that have considered the duties of the
suppliers of the raw materials and component parts have
generally found that the suppliers do not have a duty--
(A) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of
the use of a raw material or component part in
a medical device; and
(B) to warn consumers concerning the safety
and effectiveness of a medical device;
(14) attempts to impose the duties referred to in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (13) on
suppliers of the raw materials and component parts
would cause more harm than good by driving the
suppliers to cease supplying manufacturers of medical
devices; and
(15) in order to safeguard the availability of a
wide variety of lifesaving and life-enhancing medical
devices, immediate action is needed--
(A) to clarify the permissible bases of
liability for suppliers of raw materials and
component parts for medical devices; and
(B) to provide expeditious procedures to
dispose of unwarranted suits against the
suppliers in such manner as to minimize
litigation costs.
SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this title:
(1) Biomaterials supplier.--
(A) In general.--The term ``biomaterials
supplier'' means an entity that directly or
indirectly supplies a component part or raw
material for use in the manufacture of an
implant.
(B) Persons included.--Such term includes
any person who--
(i) has submitted master files to
the Secretary for purposes of premarket
approval of a medical device; or
(ii) licenses a biomaterials
supplier to produce component parts or
raw materials.
(2) Claimant.--
(A) In general.--The term ``claimant''
means any person who brings a civil action, or
on whose behalf a civil action is brought,
arising from harm allegedly caused directly or
indirectly by an implant, including a person
other than the individual into whose body, or
in contact with whose blood or tissue, the
implant is placed, who claims to have suffered
harm as a result of the implant.
(B) Action brought on behalf of an
estate.--With respect to an action brought on
behalf of or through the estate of an
individual into whose body, or in contact with
whose blood or tissue the implant is placed,
such term includes the decedent that is the
subject of the action.
(C) Action brought on behalf of a minor or
incompetent.--With respect to an action brought
on behalf of or through a minor or incompetent,
such term includes the parent or guardian of
the minor or incompetent.
(D) Exclusions.--Such term does not
include--
(i) a provider of professional
health care services, in any case in
which--
(I) the sale or use of an
implant is incidental to the
transaction; and
(II) the essence of the
transaction is the furnishing
of judgment, skill, or
services; or
(ii) a person acting in the
capacity of a manufacturer, seller, or
biomaterials supplier.
(3) Component part.--
(A) In general.--The term ``component
part'' means a manufactured piece of an
implant.
(B) Certain components.--Such term includes
a manufactured piece of an implant that--
(i) has significant non-implant
applications; and
(ii) alone, has no implant value or
purpose, but when combined with other
component parts and materials,
constitutes an implant.
(4) Harm.--
(A) In general.--The term ``harm'' means--
(i) any injury to or damage
suffered by an individual;
(ii) any illness, disease, or death
of that individual resulting from that
injury or damage; and
(iii) any loss to that individual
or any other individual resulting from
that injury or damage.
(B) Exclusion.--The term does not include
any commercial loss or loss of or damage to an
implant.
(5) Implant.--The term ``implant'' means--
(A) a medical device that is intended by
the manufacturer of the device--
(i) to be placed into a surgically
or naturally formed or existing cavity
of the body for a period of at least 30
days; or
(ii) to remain in contact with
bodily fluids or internal human tissue
through a surgically produced opening
for a period of less than 30 days; and
(B) suture materials used in implant
procedures.
(6) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means
any person who, with respect to an implant--
(A) is engaged in the manufacture,
preparation, propagation, compounding, or
processing (as defined in section 510(a)(1)) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 360(a)(1)) of the implant; and
(B) is required--
(i) to register with the Secretary
pursuant to section 510 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
360) and the regulations issued under
such section; and
(ii) to include the implant on a
list of devices filed with the
Secretary pursuant to section 510(j) of
such Act (21 U.S.C. 360(j)) and the
regulations issued under such section.
(7) Medical device.--The term ``medical device''
means a device, as defined in section 201(h) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h))
and includes any device component of any combination
product as that term is used in section 503(g) of such
Act (21 U.S.C. 353(g)).
(8) Raw material.--The term ``raw material'' means
a substance or product that--
(A) has a generic use; and
(B) may be used in an application other
than an implant.
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(10) Seller.--
(A) In general.--The term ``seller'' means
a person who, in the course of a business
conducted for that purpose, sells, distributes,
leases, packages, labels, or otherwise places
an implant in the stream of commerce.
(B) Exclusions.--The term does not
include--
(i) a seller or lessor of real
property;
(ii) a provider of professional
services, in any case in which the sale
or use of an implant is incidental to
the transaction and the essence of the
transaction is the furnishing of
judgment, skill, or services; or
(iii) any person who acts in only a
financial capacity with respect to the
sale of an implant.
SEC. 204. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS; APPLICABILITY; PREEMPTION.
(a) General Requirements.--
(1) In general.--In any civil action covered by
this title, a biomaterials supplier may raise any
defense set forth in section 205.
(2) Procedures.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Federal or State court in which a
civil action covered by this title is pending shall, in
connection with a motion for dismissal or judgment
based on a defense described in paragraph (1), use the
procedures set forth in section 206.
(b) Applicability.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), notwithstanding any other provision of law, this
title applies to any civil action brought by a
claimant, whether in a Federal or State court, against
a manufacturer, seller, or biomaterials supplier, on
the basis of any legal theory, for harm allegedly
caused by an implant.
(2) Exclusion.--A civil action brought by a
purchaser of a medical device for use in providing
professional services against a manufacturer, seller,
or biomaterials supplier for loss or damage to an
implant or for commercial loss to the purchaser--
(A) shall not be considered an action that
is subject to this title; and
(B) shall be governed by applicable
commercial or contract law.
(c) Scope of Preemption.--
(1) In general.--This title supersedes any State
law regarding recovery for harm caused by an implant
and any rule of procedure applicable to a civil action
to recover damages for such harm only to the extent
that this title establishes a rule of law applicable to
the recovery of such damages.
(2) Applicability of other laws.--Any issue that
arises under this title and that is not governed by a
rule of law applicable to the recovery of damages
described in paragraph (1) shall be governed by
applicable Federal or State law.
(d) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this title may be
construed--
(1) to affect any defense available to a defendant
under any other provisions of Federal or State law in
an action alleging harm caused by an implant; or
(2) to create a cause of action or Federal court
jurisdiction pursuant to section 1331 or 1337 of title
28, United States Code, that otherwise would not exist
under applicable Federal or State law.
SEC. 205. LIABILITY OF BIOMATERIALS SUPPLIERS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Exclusion from liability.--Except as provided
in paragraph (2), a biomaterials supplier shall not be
liable for harm to a claimant caused by an implant.
(2) Liability.--A biomaterials supplier that--
(A) is a manufacturer may be liable for
harm to a claimant described in subsection (b);
(B) is a seller may be liable for harm to a
claimant described in subsection (c); and
(C) furnishes raw materials or component
parts that fail to meet applicable contractual
requirements or specifications may be liable
for a harm to a claimant described in
subsection (d).
(b) Liability as Manufacturer.--
(1) In general.--A biomaterials supplier may, to
the extent required and permitted by any other
applicable law, be liable for harm to a claimant caused
by an implant if the biomaterials supplier is the
manufacturer of the implant.
(2) Grounds for liability.--The biomaterials
supplier may be considered the manufacturer of the
implant that allegedly caused harm to a claimant only
if the biomaterials supplier--
(A)(i) has registered with the Secretary
pursuant to section 510 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360) and the
regulations issued under such section; and
(ii) included the implant on a list of
devices filed with the Secretary pursuant to
section 510(j) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 360(j))
and the regulations issued under such section;
(B) is the subject of a declaration issued
by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (3) that
states that the supplier, with respect to the
implant that allegedly caused harm to the
claimant, was required to--
(i) register with the Secretary
under section 510 of such Act (21
U.S.C. 360), and the regulations issued
under such section, but failed to do
so; or
(ii) include the implant on a list
of devices filed with the Secretary
pursuant to section 510(j) of such Act
(21 U.S.C. 360(j)) and the regulations
issued under such section, but failed
to do so; or
(C) is related by common ownership or
control to a person meeting all the
requirements described in subparagraph (A) or
(B), if the court deciding a motion to dismiss
in accordance with section 206(c)(3)(B)(i)
finds, on the basis of affidavits submitted in
accordance with section 206, that it is
necessary to impose liability on the
biomaterials supplier as a manufacturer because
the related manufacturer meeting the
requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) lacks
sufficient financial resources to satisfy any
judgment that the court feels it is likely to
enter should the claimant prevail.
(3) Administrative procedures.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary may issue a
declaration described in paragraph (2)(B) on
the motion of the Secretary or on petition by
any person, after providing--
(i) notice to the affected persons;
and
(ii) an opportunity for an informal
hearing.
(B) Docketing and final decision.--
Immediately upon receipt of a petition filed
pursuant to this paragraph, the Secretary shall
docket the petition. Not later than 180 days
after the petition is filed, the Secretary
shall issue a final decision on the petition.
(C) Applicability of statute of
limitations.--Any applicable statute of
limitations shall toll during the period during
which a claimant has filed a petition with the
Secretary under this paragraph.
(c) Liability as Seller.--A biomaterials supplier may, to
the extent required and permitted by any other applicable law,
be liable as a seller for harm to a claimant caused by an
implant if--
(1) the biomaterials supplier--
(A) held title to the implant that
allegedly caused harm to the claimant as a
result of purchasing the implant after--
(i) the manufacture of the implant;
and
(ii) the entrance of the implant in
the stream of commerce; and
(B) subsequently resold the implant; or
(2) the biomaterials supplier is related by common
ownership or control to a person meeting all the
requirements described in paragraph (1), if a court
deciding a motion to dismiss in accordance with section
206(c)(3)(B)(ii) finds, on the basis of affidavits
submitted in accordance with section 206, that it is
necessary to impose liability on the biomaterials
supplier as a seller because the related seller meeting
the requirements of paragraph (1) lacks sufficient
financial resources to satisfy any judgment that the
court feels it is likely to enter should the claimant
prevail.
(d) Liability for Violating Contractual Requirements or
Specifications.--A biomaterials supplier may, to the extent
required and permitted by any other applicable law, be liable
for harm to a claimant caused by an implant, if the claimant in
an action shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that--
(1) the raw materials or component parts delivered
by the biomaterials supplier either--
(A) did not constitute the product
described in the contract between the
biomaterials supplier and the person who
contracted for delivery of the product; or
(B) failed to meet any specifications that
were--
(i) provided to the biomaterials
supplier and not expressly repudiated
by the biomaterials supplier prior to
acceptance of delivery of the raw
materials or component parts;
(ii)(I) published by the
biomaterials supplier;
(II) provided to the manufacturer
by the biomaterials supplier; or
(III) contained in a master file
that was submitted by the biomaterials
supplier to the Secretary and that is
currently maintained by the
biomaterials supplier for purposes of
premarket approval of medical devices;
or
(iii) included in the submissions
for purposes of premarket approval or
review by the Secretary under section
510, 513, 515, or 520 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
360, 360c, 360e, or 360j), and received
clearance from the Secretary if such
specifications were provided by the
manufacturer to the biomaterials
supplier and were not expressly
repudiated by the biomaterials supplier
prior to the acceptance by the
manufacturer of delivery of the raw
materials or component parts; and
(2) such conduct was an actual and proximate cause
of the harm to the claimant.
SEC. 206. PROCEDURES FOR DISMISSAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST
BIOMATERIALS SUPPLIERS.
(a) Motion To Dismiss.--In any action that is subject to
this title, a biomaterials supplier who is a defendant in such
action may, at any time during which a motion to dismiss may be
filed under an applicable law, move to dismiss the action
against it on the grounds that--
(1) the defendant is a biomaterials supplier; and
(2)(A) the defendant should not, for the purposes
of--
(i) section 205(b), be considered to be a
manufacturer of the implant that is subject to
such section; or
(ii) section 205(c), be considered to be a
seller of the implant that allegedly caused
harm to the claimant; or
(B)(i) the claimant has failed to establish,
pursuant to section 205(d), that the supplier furnished
raw materials or component parts in violation of
contractual requirements or specifications; or
(ii) the claimant has failed to comply with the
procedural requirements of subsection (b).
(b) Manufacturer of Implant Shall Be Named a Party.--The
claimant shall be required to name the manufacturer of the
implant as a party to the action, unless--
(1) the manufacturer is subject to service of
process solely in a jurisdiction in which the
biomaterials supplier is not domiciled or subject to a
service of process; or
(2) an action against the manufacturer is barred by
applicable law.
(c) Proceeding on Motion To Dismiss.--The following rules
shall apply to any proceeding on a motion to dismiss filed
under this section:
(1) Affidavits relating to listing and
declarations.--
(A) In general.--The defendant in the
action may submit an affidavit demonstrating
that defendant has not included the implant on
a list, if any, filed with the Secretary
pursuant to section 510(j) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360(j)).
(B) Response to motion to dismiss.--In
response to the motion to dismiss, the claimant
may submit an affidavit demonstrating that--
(i) the Secretary has, with respect
to the defendant and the implant that
allegedly caused harm to the claimant,
issued a declaration pursuant to
section 205(b)(2)(B); or
(ii) the defendant who filed the
motion to dismiss is a seller of the
implant who is liable under section
205(c).
(2) Effect of motion to dismiss on discovery.--
(A) In general.--If a defendant files a
motion to dismiss under paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a), no discovery shall be permitted
in connection to the action that is the subject
of the motion, other than discovery necessary
to determine a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction, until such time as the court
rules on the motion to dismiss in accordance
with the affidavits submitted by the parties in
accordance with this section.
(B) Discovery.--If a defendant files a
motion to dismiss under subsection (a)(2)(B)(i)
on the grounds that the biomaterials supplier
did not furnish raw materials or component
parts in violation of contractual requirements
or specifications, the court may permit
discovery, as ordered by the court. The
discovery conducted pursuant to this
subparagraph shall be limited to issues that
are directly relevant to--
(i) the pending motion to dismiss;
or
(ii) the jurisdiction of the court.
(3) Affidavits relating status of defendant.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in
clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B), the
court shall consider a defendant to be a
biomaterials supplier who is not subject to an
action for harm to a claimant caused by an
implant, other than an action relating to
liability for a violation of contractual
requirements or specifications described in
subsection (d).
(B) Responses to motion to dismiss.--The
court shall grant a motion to dismiss any
action that asserts liability of the defendant
under subsection (b) or (c) of section 205 on
the grounds that the defendant is not a
manufacturer subject to such section 205(b) or
seller subject to section 205(c), unless the
claimant submits a valid affidavit that
demonstrates that--
(i) with respect to a motion to
dismiss contending the defendant is not
a manufacturer, the defendant meets the
applicable requirements for liability
as a manufacturer under section 205(b);
or
(ii) with respect to a motion to
dismiss contending that the defendant
is not a seller, the defendant meets
the applicable requirements for
liability as a seller under section
205(c).
(4) Basis of ruling on motion to dismiss.--
(A) In general.--The court shall rule on a
motion to dismiss filed under subsection (a)
solely on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties made pursuant to this section and any
affidavits submitted by the parties pursuant to
this section.
(B) Motion for summary judgment.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if
the court determines that the pleadings and
affidavits made by parties pursuant to this
section raise genuine issues as concerning
material facts with respect to a motion
concerning contractual requirements and
specifications, the court may deem the motion
to dismiss to be a motion for summary judgment
made pursuant to subsection (d).
(d) Summary Judgment.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Basis for entry of judgment.--A
biomaterials supplier shall be entitled to
entry of judgment without trial if the court
finds there is no genuine issue as concerning
any material fact for each applicable element
set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section
205(d).
(B) Issues of material fact.--With respect
to a finding made under subparagraph (A), the
court shall consider a genuine issue of
material fact to exist only if the evidence
submitted by claimant would be sufficient to
allow a reasonable jury to reach a verdict for
the claimant if the jury found the evidence to
be credible.
(2) Discovery made prior to a ruling on a motion
for summary judgment.--If, under applicable rules, the
court permits discovery prior to a ruling on a motion
for summary judgment made pursuant to this subsection,
such discovery shall be limited solely to establishing
whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to
the applicable elements set forth in paragraphs (1) and
(2) of section 205(d).
(3) Discovery with respect to a biomaterials
supplier.--A biomaterials supplier shall be subject to
discovery in connection with a motion seeking dismissal
or summary judgment on the basis of the inapplicability
of section 205(d) or the failure to establish the
applicable elements of section 205(d) solely to the
extent permitted by the applicable Federal or State
rules for discovery against nonparties.
(e) Stay Pending Petition for Declaration.--If a claimant
has filed a petition for a declaration pursuant to section
205(b)(3)(A) with respect to a defendant, and the Secretary has
not issued a final decision on the petition, the court shall
stay all proceedings with respect to that defendant until such
time as the Secretary has issued a final decision on the
petition.
(f) Manufacturer Conduct of Proceeding.--The manufacturer
of an implant that is the subject of an action covered under
this title shall be permitted to file and conduct a proceeding
on any motion for summary judgment or dismissal filed by a
biomaterials supplier who is a defendant under this section if
the manufacturer and any other defendant in such action enter
into a valid and applicable contractual agreement under which
the manufacturer agrees to bear the cost of such proceeding or
to conduct such proceeding.
(g) Attorney Fees.--The court shall require the claimant to
compensate the biomaterials supplier (or a manufacturer
appearing in lieu of a supplier pursuant to subsection (f)) for
attorney fees and costs, if--
(1) the claimant named or joined the biomaterials
supplier; and
(2) the court found the claim against the
biomaterials supplier to be without merit and
frivolous.
TITLE III--LIMITATIONS ON APPLICABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 301. EFFECT OF COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS.
A decision by a Federal circuit court of appeals
interpreting a provision of this Act (except to the extent that
the decision is overruled or otherwise modified by the Supreme
Court) shall be considered a controlling precedent with respect
to any subsequent decision made concerning the interpretation
of such provision by any Federal or State court within the
geographical boundaries of the area under the jurisdiction of
the circuit court of appeals.
SEC. 302. FEDERAL CAUSE OF ACTION PRECLUDED.
The district courts of the United States shall not have
jurisdiction pursuant to this Act based on section 1331 or 1337
of title 28, United States Code.
SEC. 303. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall apply with respect to any action commenced
on or after the date of the enactment of this Act without
regard to whether the harm that is the subject of the action or
the conduct that caused the harm occurred before such date of
enactment.
And the Senate agree to the same.
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for
consideration of the House bill, and the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Henry Hyde,
James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
George W. Gekas,
Bob Inglis,
Ed Bryant,
From the Committee on Commerce, for
consideration of the House bill, and the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Tom Bliley,
Michael Oxley,
Christopher Cox,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Larry Pressler,
Slade Gorton,
Trent Lott,
Ted Stevens,
Olympia Snowe,
John Ashcroft,
J.J. Exon,
John D. Rockefeller,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at
the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 956), to
establish legal standards and procedures for product liability
litigation, and for other purposes, submit the following joint
statement to the House and the Senate in explanation of the
effect of the action agreed upon by the managers and
recommended in the accompanying conference report:
The Senate amendment struck all of the House bill after
the enacting clause and inserted a substitute text.
The House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate with an amendment that is a substitute for the
House bill and the Senate amendment. The differences between
the House bill, the Senate amendment, and the substitute agreed
to in conference are noted below, except for clerical
corrections, conforming changes made necessary by agreements
reached by the conferees, and minor drafting and clerical
changes.
The conferees incorporate by reference in this Statement
of Managers the legislative history reflected in both House
Report 104-64, Part 1 and Senate Report 104-69. To the extent
not otherwise inconsistent with the conference agreement, those
reports give expression to the intent of the conferees. (The
conferees also take note of House Report 104-63, Part 1, which
contains supplementary legislative history on a related bill.)
Short Title and Table of Contents
The conferees, in section 1(a), modified the short title
of the House bill to reflect the terms of the conference
agreement. The conferees also decided that a table of contents
would be helpful and therefore incorporated in section 1(b) the
headings of the separate titles and sections of this
legislation.
Findings and Purposes
H.R. 956--but not the Senate amendment--included findings
and purposes. The conferees decided it was important--in the
legislation itself--to delineate the factual basis for
congressional action and explain what Congress seeks to
accomplish. The language adopted, contained in section 2,
generally follows the House-passed bill with some
modifications.
Paragraph (1) of the findings in H.R. 956 was not
included in the conference agreement because the conferees
decided that describing misuses of the civil justice system in
very broad terms was unnecessary. That paragraph had been
written at a level of generality exceeding other findings. The
omission of the paragraph should not be interpreted as
reflecting adversely on its accuracy.
Section 2(a)(9) of the conference agreement refers to two
constitutional roles of the national government that are
directly relevant to this legislation--``to remove barriers to
interstate commerce and to protect due process rights.''
Although the latter was not included in H.R. 956's findings,
legislative history clearly conveyed the House's recognition of
the Federal government's due process related role. The report
of the Committee on the Judiciary (House Report 104-64, Part 1)
noted: Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides an
independent constitutional ground for Congressional legislation
limiting awards for punitive damages. Congress is given the
authority, under section 5, ``to enforce, by appropriate
legislation'' the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment--which
include a proscription on state deprivations of ``life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law.'' [p. 8]
Including explicit reference to due process rights in the
findings is appropriate if the findings are to more fully
reflect our understanding of the constitutional underpinnings
for this legislation.
The purposes of this legislation, as delineated in
section 2(b), are ``to promote the free flow of goods and
services and to lessen burdens on interstate commerce and to
uphold constitutionally protected due process rights. * * *''
Upholding due process rights was an important objective the
House sought to advance even though explicit reference to it
did not appear in H.R. 956's statement of purposes. The
Committee on the Judiciary's report (House Report 104-64, Part
1) on H.R. 956 stated: ``The Committee acted to reform punitive
damages not only to ameliorate adverse effects on interstate
and foreign commerce but also to protect due process rights.''
[page 9] Adding the phrase ``uphold constitutionally protected
due process rights'' to the purposes provides a more complete
statement of congressional objectives.
Definitions
Section 101 defines 18 terms for purposes of Title I. One
of these terms--compensatory damages--is not defined in either
H.R. 956 or the Senate amendment.
Applicability; Preemption
Section 102 addresses preemption, relationship to State
law, and effect on other law.
Liability Rules Applicable to Product Sellers, Renters, and Lessors
Both the House bill and Senate amendment included
liability rules applicable to product sellers. Section 103 of
the conference agreement is designed to reduce consumer costs
and provide fair treatment for product sellers--defined to
include those who sell, rent, or lease a product in the course
of a business conducted for that purpose. To more fully reflect
the application of this section's remedial provisions beyond
sellers in the narrow sense of the word, the conference
agreement refers to renters and lessors in section 103's title.
As a general rule, liability of product sellers can be
predicated on harm resulting from a product seller's (1)
failure to exercise reasonable care, (2) breach of its own
express warranty, or (3) intentional wrong-doing. The failure
to exercise reasonable care requirement for potential liability
applies not only to products sold by the product seller--as
stated in H.R. 956--but also to products rented or leased by
the product seller--as stated in the Senate amendment. The
conferees recognize that the unfairness of imputing
manufacturer conduct to others applies regardless of whether a
product is sold, rented, or leased--and for that reason adopt
the Senate language. That language is consistent with the
intent of the House to make protections available in a sale
situation also available in a rental or lease situation.
Both H.R. 956 and the Senate amendment set forth those
limited circumstances in which a product seller can be treated
as a manufacturer of a product. One covered situation involves
a court determination that ``the claimant would be unable to
enforce a judgment against the manufacturer.'' In response to
concerns raised after House consideration of the bill that
claimants might not learn about such a judicial determination
within the period of the statute of limitations--and therefore
would be barred unfairly from proceeding against the seller--
the Senate included a provision tolling the statute of
limitations for limited purposes ``from the date of the filing
of a complaint against the manufacturer to the date that
judgment is entered against the manufacturer.'' The conferees
accept this provision because it safeguards a protection for
claimants given expression in both bills. Since the conference
agreement incorporates a uniform statute of limitations in
section 106, the inclusion of this safeguard relating to the
time bar is particularly appropriate.
The conference agreement clarifies that State law, rather
than the provisions of section 103, govern actions for
negligent entrustment. State law, for example, will continue to
apply to lawsuits predicated on the alleged negligence involved
in giving a loaded gun to a young child or allowing an
unlicensed and unqualified minor below driving age to operate
an automobile. Similarly, the potential liability of a service
station that sells gasoline to an obviously drunk driver will
be determined under State law. Section 103(d) gives expression
to the interest of each State in setting standards for
determining whether conduct within its borders constitutes
negligent entrustment.
Defenses Involving Intoxicating Alcohol or Drugs
Both H.R. 956 and the Senate amendment provide a complete
defense to a product liability action in situations in which a
claimant, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, is more than
fifty percent responsible--as a result of such influence--for
the accident or event resulting in the harm he or she sustains.
A society that seeks to discourage alcohol and drug abuse
should not allow individuals to collect damages when their
disregard of such an important societal norm is the primary
cause of accidents or events.
The conference committee generally accepts the House
formulation in section 104. The conferees did not incorporate
the Senate reference to the defendant proving alcohol or drug
related facts because the issue of who has the burden of proof
on these issues is best left to State law. A requirement for
the availability of the defense related to alcohol or drug use,
under the Senate amendment, is that the claimant was ``under
the influence.'' The House language, which was adopted, is more
broadly worded and refers to the claimant being ``intoxicated
or * * * under the influence.'' The House provision was
accepted because the conferees want to ensure the availability
of the defense relating to alcohol or drugs in cases in which
State law may consider an individual to be ``intoxicated'' but
not necessarily ``under the influence''--perhaps because the
latter term does not have legal significance in a particular
jurisdiction.
The conferees specifically incorporate the Controlled
Substances Act definition of controlled substance in the
conference agreement's delineation of what the term ``drug''
means--following the House version in that respect. The Senate
amendment was silent in this regard. The reference to the
Controlled Substances Act will foster uniformity in decisions
by State courts on whether particular substances constitute
drugs. A substance that is taken by a claimant in accordance
with the terms of a lawfully issued prescription, however, is
not considered a drug for purposes of this section. The policy
fostered is the denial of recovery to those whose accidents are
primarily caused by the abuse of drugs.
Although the use of controlled substances in accordance
with the terms of lawfully issued prescriptions can lead to
accidents--in circumstances, for example, where one's ability
to drive may be impaired--the conferees leave to individual
States the responsibility of resolving whether potential
recovery is defeated by such conduct. The conference agreement
focuses on the most egregious conduct implicating Federal
interests--noting the national market for illegal drugs and the
transportation of illegal drugs across State lines and in
international commerce.
The Senate provision's reference to a drug that ``was not
prescribed by a physician for use by the claimant'' does not
cover situations in which the terms of a lawfully issued
prescription are disregarded--perhaps by consuming excessive
quantities. The conferees conclude, however, that individuals
who abuse prescription drugs lack sufficient equities to
recover for accidents primarily caused by their drug use--and
for that reason refer to any controlled substance ``taken by
the claimant other than in accordance with the terms of a
lawfully issued prescription'', thus opting for the broader
House formulation.
Finally, the House version of this section is modified to
cover controlled substances ``not legally prescribed for use by
the claimant'' in addition to controlled substances ``taken by
the claimant other than in accordance with the terms of a
lawfully issued prescription.'' The phrase ``not legally
prescribed for use by the claimant'' makes unambiguous the
requirement that the prescription be for the claimant's own
use. A claimant cannot cause an accident after using someone
else's prescription, even in accordance with its terms, and
recover damages.
The phrase ``legally prescribed'' is a variation on the
Senate provision's reference to ``prescribed by a physician.''
The change takes into account the fact that the right to
prescribe medication is not limited to physicians in every
jurisdiction. The potential applicability of defenses involving
drugs should not depend on whether a legally issued
prescription comes from a physician or non-physician--
particularly in view of the fact that physicians may not be
available or accessible in some areas of the country.
Misuse or Alteration
Both H.R. 956 and the Senate amendment include an
important reform--incorporated in section 105 of the conference
agreement--designed to assure manufacturers and sellers that
they can develop and sell products without undue concern about
unknowable and unpredictable liability attributable to claims
resulting from the misuse or alteration of their products.
Subsection (a)(1) of section 105 generally follows the
House language. Damages will be reduced because of misuse or
alteration, however, not only in cases of liability arising
under State law--as H.R. 956 provides--but also in possible
cases of liability arising under Federal law. Damages are
reduced if the defendant establishes the requisite link between
a certain percentage of the claimant's harm and specified
conduct.
Although the ``preponderance of the evidence'' standard
will apply--as the House version explicitly states--the
conference agreement deletes reference to this evidentiary
standard in section 105(a) in order to avoid any possible
negative inference from the fact that the legislation does not
refer to ``preponderance of the evidence'' in other sections.
Preponderance of the evidence is the usual standard in civil
cases--including product liability cases. The conferees' intent
is that courts apply the usual standard in all situations
covered by this legislation except where another standard is
explicitly mandated.
Subsection (a)(2) follows Senate language. Although this
provision appears to state a self-evident proposition--that a
use intended by the manufacturer does not constitute a misuse
or alteration--it is included to alleviate concerns that some
courts might reach a different result.
Subsection (b) follows House language and states the
general rule that a claimant's damages will not be reduced
because of misuse or alteration by others in the workplace who
are immune from suit by the claimant. The rationale is that
Federal law should not mandate a reduction in damages for a
claimant who cannot collect from an employer or co-employee for
misuse or alteration. The conference agreement, however, carves
an exception to the general prohibition against such reductions
by specifying that damages will not be reduced ``except as
otherwise provided in section 111'' of the conference agreement
dealing with workers' compensation subrogation.
The conferees intend that, consistent with normal
principles of law, this section shall supersede State law
concerning misuse or alteration of a product only to the extent
that State law is inconsistent with this section. The deletion
of language in the Senate amendment on this point was intended
merely to avoid any possible inference that it is not intended
to be the case in other sections of the legislation.
Statute of Limitations
The fact that consumers generally do not live in the
States in which the products they purchase and use are
manufactured creates confusion and uncertainty for
manufacturers when the law allows determinations of whether
product liability actions are barred by a statute of
limitations to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This
uncertainty and unpredictability ultimately means higher prices
for consumers. In addition, it is unfair to deny the potential
for a remedy to an injured party living in one State that may
be available to an injured party using the same product in
another State. The conferees conclude that uniformity is needed
and agree that two years is a reasonable limitation on the
period of time for the filing of a lawsuit by an injured
individual--regardless of where he or she may reside. This
decision is reflected in the language contained in section
106(a).
The conferees expect that in most cases legal actions
will be brought within two years of the accident or injury,
because generally individuals have knowledge--or can be charged
with knowledge--of the resulting harm and its cause at the time
of an injury. An inflexible rule linking the running of the
statute of limitations to the time of injury, however, would be
unfair to those few injured parties who could not--despite the
exercise of reasonable care--discover the harm and its cause.
To address the exigencies of those situations, the conferees
adopted the language of the Senate amendment referencing the
date ``on which the claimant discovered or, in the exercise of
reasonable care, should have discovered'' the harm and its
cause.
Statute of Repose
Both the House bill and Senate amendment included
provisions to protect manufacturers against stale claims that
arise many years after a product's first intended use. A
statute of repose would allow U.S. manufacturers to compete
with foreign companies that have entered the American
marketplace in recent years and face no liability exposure for
very old products. Section 106(b) advances U.S.
competitiveness, preserves and expands employment opportunities
here at home, and protects American consumers from the higher
prices for goods and services that result from excessive
litigation related expenses, inflated settlement offers, and
increased liability insurance rates.
The statute of repose contained in the conference
agreement will, for durable goods, generally bar product
liability actions that are not filed within 15 years of a
product's delivery. The time of delivery refers to the date
that the product reaches its first purchaser or lessee who was
not engaged in the business of selling or leasing the product
or of using the product as a component in the manufacture of
another product. The only exceptions to the statute of repose
that courts appropriately can recognize are those explicitly
provided for in section 106(b)(3) itself. The 15 year time
period is taken from the House bill.
Section 106(b) adopts Senate language making the time bar
applicable only to durable goods. Section 106(b)(2) is also
language from the Senate amendment. It provides for deferring
to State law time bars--on actions covered by this
legislation--that are shorter than 15 years. The conferees
believe that States should remain free to impose time limits of
less than 15 years--a concept given expression in section
106(b)(2). Such State limitations are not inconsistent with the
objectives of section 106(b)--including fostering a more
conducive environment for U.S. companies to compete in the
global marketplace. Furthermore, nothing in the conference
agreement is to be interpreted to preempt state statutes of
repose which may apply to goods other than durable goods as
defined in this agreement.
Section 106(c) is a transition provision that permits
product liability actions to be brought within one year of the
date of enactment in situations in which the application of the
statute of repose (or statute of limitations) shortens the
period otherwise available under State law. The provision
protects potential claimants by affording them a fair and
reasonable opportunity to adjust to time limitations contained
in section 106.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Section 107 incorporates a provision of the Senate
amendment dealing with alternative dispute resolution.
Punitive Damages
The requirement of ``conscious, flagrant indifference to
the rights or safety of others'' in section 108(a) makes it
clear that punitive damages may be awarded only in the most
serious cases. Punitive damages are not intended as
compensation for injured parties. Rather, they are intended to
punish and to deter wrongful conduct.
The conferees understand that punitive damages can be
awarded in cases of intentional harm. For this reason, it was
not felt necessary to express the concept explicitly. Thus, the
conference agreement does not retain the language contained in
the House passed bill regarding conduct ``specifically intended
to cause harm.''
Section 108(b) imposes a limitation on punitive damages--
with a special rule applicable to individuals of limited net
worth and businesses or entities with small numbers of
employees. The limitation on punitive damages cannot be
disclosed to the jury. A punitive damage award may be appealed
even if it falls within the limitation. Nothing in the bill
prevents a trial court (and each reviewing court) from
reviewing punitive damage awards individually and determining
whether the award is appropriate under the particular
circumstances of that case.
Although the conferees establish a mechanism for awarding
additional punitive damages in limited circumstances
(``egregious conduct'' on the part of the defendant and a
punitive damages jury verdict insufficient to punish such
egregious conduct, or to deter the defendant), it is
anticipated that occasions for additional awards will be very
limited indeed. Findings of fact and conclusions of law
relating to the award of additional punitive damages are
designed both to ensure that judges carefully consider such
decisions and to facilitate appellate review. The court may not
enter an award of punitive damages in excess of the amount of
punitive damages originally assessed by the jury. The
additional award provisions do not apply in cases covered by
section 108(b)(2)--actions against an individual whose net
worth does not exceed $500,000 or against entities that have
fewer than 25 full-time employees.
Section 108(c)(1) clarifies that a separate proceeding on
punitive damages--pursuant to a bifurcation request of any
party--shall be held subsequent to the determination of the
amount of compensatory damages. This order of proceedings,
consistent with the intent of both the House and Senate, is
being made explicit to avoid any possible confusion. A
determination of punitive damages first can adversely and
unfairly influence financial markets and result in
inappropriate pressure on defendants to settle. Punitive
damages expressed as a multiple of compensatory damages to be
determined later may not result in any liability if a different
jury considering compensatory damages decides in favor of the
defendant. This potential verdict for a defendant, however, may
come too late because of the realities of the business world.
The conferees clarify in section 108(c)(2) that it is
improper not only to offer evidence--but also to raise
arguments or contentions--relevant only to a claim of punitive
damages in the compensatory damages proceeding, because of the
potential prejudicial effects. The conferees' objective is to
avoid infecting determinations of liability--or the amount of
compensatory damages--with such irrelevant information.
Liability for Claims Involving Death
Section 109 incorporates a provision of the Senate
amendment designed to address a situation unique to one State.
Several Liability for Noneconomic Loss
The language of section 110 on several liability for
noneconomic loss in product liability cases substantially
follows the Senate amendment. The rule of several liability for
noneconomic loss applies to all product liability actions
nationwide.
The conference agreement, based on the Senate amendment,
clearly states that in allocating noneconomic damages to a
defendant, ``the trier of fact shall determine the percentage
of responsibility of each person responsible for the claimant's
harm, whether or not such person is a party to the action.''
[Emphasis added] The Senate formulation reflected here is fully
consistent with the intent of the House as expressed in Report
Number 104-64, Part 1: ``[T]he trier of fact will determine the
proportion of responsibility of each person responsible for the
claimant's harm, without regard to whether or not such person
is a party to the action.'' pp. 13-14. Persons who may be
responsible for the claimant's harm include, but are not
necessarily limited to, defendants, third-party defendants,
settled parties, nonparties, and persons or entities that
cannot be tried (e.g., bankrupt persons, employers and other
immune entities).
The House passed version specified that the section
``does not preempt or supersede any State or Federal law to the
extent that such law would further limit the application of the
theory of joint liability to any kind of damages.'' The
conferees have not included this language in the conference
report itself because it is superfluous and self-evident.
Reference is made to it in the statement of managers, however,
to rebut any possible negative inference from its omission. The
quoted language itself reflects the conference agreement's
intent.
Workers' Compensation Subrogation
Section 111(a)(1)(A) provides that, in any product
liability action involving a workplace injury, an insurer shall
have a right of subrogation. Section 111(a)(1)(B) provides
that, to assert a right of subrogation, an insurer must provide
the court with written notice that it is asserting a right of
subrogation. Section 111(a)(1)(C) states that the insurer need
not be a necessary party to the product liability action. Thus,
an employee can pursue a product liability action against a
manufacturer without regard to the insurer's participation in
the action. This section focuses on eliminating unsafe
workplaces and is, therefore, applicable in all actions where
employer or coemployee fault for a claimant's harm is at issue.
Conversely, section 111 does not apply in cases where the
product liability defendant chooses not to raise employer or
coemployer fault as a defense.
Section 111(a)(2)(A) preserves the right of an insurer to
assert a right of subrogation against payment made by a product
liability defendant, without regard to whether the payment is
made as part of a settlement, in satisfaction of a judgment, as
consideration for a covenant not to sue, or for any other
reason. ``Claimant's benefits'' is defined in section 101(3)
and is a broad term which includes the total workers'
compensation award, including compensation representing lost
wages, payments made by way of an annuity, health care
expenses, and all other payments made by the insurer for the
benefit of the employee to compensate for a workplace injury.
Section 111(a)(3) provides the mechanism for increased
workplace safety. Under section 111(a)(3)(A), a product
liability defendant may attempt to prove to the trier of fact
that the claimant's injury was caused by the fault of the
claimant's employer or a coemployee. The term ``employer
fault'' means that the conduct of the employer or a coemployee
was a substantial cause of the claimant's harm or contributed
to the claimant's harm in a meaningful way; it is more than a
de minimus level of fault. Section 111(a)(3)(C)(i) provides
that, if the trier of fact finds by clear and convincing
evidence that the claimant's injury was caused by the fault of
the claimant's employer or a coemployee, the product liability
damages award and, correspondingly, the insurer's subrogation
lien shall be reduced by the amount of the claimant's benefits.
In no case shall the employee's third-party damage award
reduction exceed the amount of the subrogation lien. Thus, the
amount the injured employee would receive remains totally
unaffected. The Act merely provides that the insurer will not
be able to recover workers' compensation benefits it paid to
the employee if it is found by clear and convincing evidence
that the claimant's harm was caused by the fault of the
employer or a coemployee.
Biomaterials
Title II of the conference agreement contains the
``Biomaterials Access Assurance Act of 1996.'' A similar title
passed both as a part of the House bill and the Senate
amendment. Title II is intended to provide a defense to
suppliers of materials or parts which are used to manufacture
implantable medical devices. The definition of ``medical
device'' in existing law, which is incorporated by reference
into Title II, would limit this defense to a device which does
not ``achieve any of its principal intended purposes through
chemical action within or on the body of man * * * '', in
short, devices which do not contain drugs.
Newly patented devices, and others now in development,
are manufactured from ``parts'' intended to be covered by Title
II, but also contain an active ingredient or drug. The purpose
of such devices is long term (up to one year) release of such
materials into the body. Such devices can introduce medications
affecting numerous bodily functions, previously only available
by regular injections or oral dosages.
The conferees adopted a new definition which brings the
``parts,'' but not the active ingredients, used in such
``combination products'' (as that term is used in section
503(g) of the Act) within the purview of this section. This
will ensure that the development and availability of such
devices will not be impaired because of the same liability
concerns affecting the availability of materials for other
types of implants.
Court of Appeal Decisions
Section 301 describes the precedential effect of certain
Federal appellate decisions. It is based on a provision of the
Senate amendment.
Federal Cause of Action
Both H.R. 956 and the Senate amendment include provisions
on preclusion. Section 302 incorporates the language of the
House bill.
Effective Date
The effective date provision of H.R. 956 references
actions commenced ``after'' the enactment date. Corresponding
Senate provisions refer to actions ``on or after'' the date of
enactment and clarify that the effective date is without regard
to whether the relevant harm or conduct occurred before the
enactment date. The conferees, in section 303, accept the ``on
or after'' formulation and the clarifying clause from the
Senate amendment.
From the Committee on the Judiciary, for
consideration of the House bill, and the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Henry Hyde,
James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
George W. Gekas,
Bob Inglis,
Ed Bryant,
From the Committee on Commerce, for
consideration of the House bill, and the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to
conference:
Tom Bliley,
Michael Oxley,
Christopher Cox,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Larry Pressler,
Slade Gorton,
Trent Lott,
Ted Stevens,
Olympia Snowe,
John Ashcroft,
J.J. Exon,
John D. Rockefeller,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
