1 week Ago
The big change at the S.C. Statehouse next year will be a much larger and more conservative GOP majority in the Senate ; the big change a disruptive group of performance artists had hoped to make in the House failed.
Still, the House Republican Caucus is worth paying attention to, because it nearly always gets its entire agenda through the lower chamber, where it holds an overwhelming majority. And while this year’s agenda could hardly be called a surprise, several parts of it have a greater chance now of making it through the Senate and to GOP Gov. Henry McMaster’s desk.
Editorial: Drunk driving is the problem; liquor liability law is one of SC's few solutions That includes an effort to help bars and restaurants whose owners say they're being forced out of business by soaring liquor liability insurance rates — something Senate Republican Leader Shane Massey also calls a priority . The S.C.
Daily Gazette reports that in a three-page letter outlining their priorities to the rest of the caucus, House Speaker Murrell Smith, Republican Leader Davey Hiott and three others said they especially hope to provide assistance for communities injured by devastating storms, speed up state income tax cuts, help businesses grow jobs and pass private school vouchers, road improvements and relief for bars. Technically, the letter didn’t say the House is on board with the bar and restaurant industry’s push to eliminate one of the best tools our state has to reduce the carnage of drunken driving. Instead, it refers to “business owners, especially restaurants, bars, and VFW Posts, across the state who are experiencing outrageous insurance premiums” and declares that “We must deliver relief to businesses while also promoting public safety and responsible business practices so that entrepreneurs aren’t pushed out of their life’s work because the cost of insurance is too high.
” Editorial: Big loss for SC bars was a bigger win for sober drivers, passengers, and they need one Take those words literally — paying particular attention to “promoting public safety and responsible business practices” — and that rejects the bar industry’s efforts to protect bars and restaurants from accountability when they overserve the customers who kill and injure our friends, family and neighbors. And we hope those words were meant literally. Perhaps House leaders simply want to help bail out responsible bar owners — a questionable policy, but one that doesn’t pose a risk to public safety.
But providing relief to businesses and cutting insurance rates is the type of language the bars and their allies have been using, and the state Republican Party put a question on its presidential primary ballot earlier this year aimed at pressuring GOP legislators into dismantling this important anti-DUI law. Besides, in a state that consistently leads the nation with our DUI death rate, we wouldn’t expect supporters of an assault on DUI victims to actually explain what they want to do, because it’s difficult to defend, regardless of political party or philosophy. Editorial: Manipulative GOP ballot questions deserve 'no' votes — even for the good idea This whole topic can be confusing, because there are several complicated legal concepts at play.
So regardless of what House leaders intend, we believe it’s important to lay the issues out early for our new legislators and for the public. South Carolina has what's called a joint and several liability law, which allows people who are found liable in a lawsuit to be stuck with more than their share of the damages if other defendants can’t pay, but in most cases, it applies only to people who are at least 50% to blame. The exception is for “a defendant whose conduct is determined to be wilful, wanton, reckless, grossly negligent, or intentional or conduct involving the use, sale, or possession of alcohol or the illegal or illicit use, sale, or possession of drugs.
” Editorial: How to reduce bars' liability insurance rates without reducing their liability There are legitimate questions about the fairness of joint and several, particularly when plaintiffs manipulate the numbers by not suing some parties who might have been more responsible, to ensure those with the deepest pockets get into that 50% position. But there's nothing unfair about requiring defendants to pay extra when their actions are grossly negligent — including when they keep serving liquor to clearly drunk patrons, who then get behind the wheel and kill innocent people. The drunks obviously are responsible for those wrecks, but the bars that profited from enabling their drunkenness are not without blame.
That's the one part of our joint and several law that clearly needs to be retained, yet it's the main thing the bars and their supporters in the Legislature have been trying to change. We don’t think relying on lawsuits is the best way to deter bars from endangering the public. We would much prefer to do that through our criminal laws, like we do with other public safety measures.
We would start by making it a crime to sell alcohol to someone who’s already had too much, imposing extremely tough civil and criminal penalties for doing that and including muscular enforcement — which also could improve our ability to catch bars that serve alcohol to minors. That way we stop bad behavior before it results in deaths and injuries, and the chance of getting penalized isn’t left to how good a job a trial lawyer can do persuading a jury to sympathize with a victim. Editorial: A tragic reminder of why bars have to pay more than 'their share' The Legislature could — and probably should — change how insurance companies are allowed to set liability rates for bars, so responsible bars don't have to subsidize irresponsible bars as much.
Lawmakers also could — and should — require bar staff to be trained to recognize drunkenness, so they can cut off patrons who have had enough. And they definitely should toughen our DUI law. What the Legislature shouldn't do is reduce this tiny deterrence we have against overserving patrons in order to bail out bars that are taking an active role in helping create drunken drivers.
We've got more than enough of those without their assistance. Click here for more opinion content from The Post and Courier..
