Most of us knew the debate in the S.C. Legislature this year about liquor liability insurance reform and tort reform would be divisive. MADD had one simple request: Ensure any solution is viewed through the lens of those who have suffered from drunk driving incidents resulting in tragedy. Unfortunately, the Senate's proposal showed that lens was not only ignored, it was crushed under the heel of greed.
From day one, we opposed Senate Bill 244 because it put crime victims last, prioritizing law-breakers over them. Unbelievably, the final version of S.244 was even worse than the original. We again beg the Legislature to understand the impact of its actions on the innocent.
Joint and several liability, a key legal principle in this debate, can be confusing, but here's a basic example: A bar recklessly overserves an intoxicated patron who then causes a crash that takes a life or leaves someone with the nightmare of a lifetime of permanent painful injuries. Currently, the victim likely receives the full compensation awarded by a jury, even if most has to come from the law-breaking bar. If joint and several liability is removed, a jury would divide fault between the bar and the drunk driver and tie their financial obligation to that percentage.
If you stop there, that might sound sensible and fair, and the Senate certainly wants your thinking to stop there. But the next question has to be: What is the impact of this change? If the drunk driver is deemed 60% at fault, the victim likely will never see that 60% because the drunk driver almost never has the funds. So victims would get just 40% of what they should, maybe to cover the cost of a lifetime of expensive medical issues. That’s how we want to treat the only person involved who did nothing wrong?
On top of this misguided change, S.244 cuts the minimum liquor liability insurance requirement for establishments in half, which may leave victims with even less from their lawsuits. The current standards were set in 2017 because previously victims and survivors were left without compensation from bars that would just file bankruptcy and often left survivors’ medical bills to be picked up by all of us through public assistance.
If the goal is truly to control liquor liability insurance rates, and MADD supports that aim, then H.3497 that sailed through the House offers a far better solution by differentiating insurance requirements based on the practices of the establishment. It’s wise to say that a fine dining establishment and an all-night bar that serves cheap drinks should not be held to the same standards for insurance coverage. This tiered approach to setting coverage minimums is much more sensible than the heartless dismissal of victims’ rights in S.244.
It’s worth noting that H.3497 had unanimous support in the House, while S.244 just about tore the Senate apart. We think there is a lesson there.
This is a question of right and wrong. Do we want to live in a society that protects people who did nothing wrong other than try to get home from work or go visit a loved one or a society that prioritizes the very entities that participated in the crime? There is a way to respect what victims have gone through and also bring down liquor liability rates; it’s never been one or the other. Here’s hoping the House steps in and takes the Senate’s keys away on this one.
Steven Burritt is regional executive director for Mothers Against Drunk Driving for South Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee.