Senate advances products-liability reforms after contentious debate

Senators debated a package of products-liability reforms, including Senate Bill 70, in an extended floor discussion that turned on the balance between protecting product sellers and preserving remedies for injured consumers.

Sponsor Senator McAllister described SB70 as a narrowly targeted measure to protect product sellers who did not open or inspect products manufactured elsewhere, allowing suit against manufacturers in appropriate circumstances while preserving plaintiff remedies if the manufacturer cannot be sued. "A person who sells a product without ever opening that product should not be held liable if the manufacturer of the product can be sued," the sponsor said.

Opponents, including Senator Cornaby and others, argued the bills risked taking away plaintiffs’ rights and that a statutory 10-year presumption of useful life (addressed in a related measure) was an arbitrary cutoff for diverse products. Senator Cornaby said the approach could create problems that courts have not yet faced and cautioned against broad statutory limits on plaintiffs’ options.

After floor amendments and robust exchanges between sponsors and critics, the Senate recorded passage of SB70. The tally reported on the floor was 16 ayes, 11 nays, with 2 absent. Other related bills in the products-liability package were debated at length; one related measure (later recorded as Senate Bill 69) required further consideration and was held for 24 hours following a corrected vote count.

Supporters emphasized restoring balance and reducing legal costs for in‑state retailers; opponents emphasized risk to injured parties and urged caution. The bills now proceed in the legislative process following Senate action.

No criminal or new administrative penalties were created on the floor beyond the statutory language discussed; senators asked for committee follow-up and for consideration of court implications.