On the recordMarch 9, 1995
the House a little earlier rejected an amendment which would have denied discovery to American firms which were involved in product liability cases where foreigners were taking advantage of them and where they were receiving shelter under the bill. Note that the vote was 258 in favor of that amendment, an overwhelming win. This amendment would, and language of section 109, eliminate the requirement that foreign companies inside this country appoint an agent for purposes of receiving service in the case of product liability suits. I say that the House has once rejected that principle and should again reject it. Under the previous amendment, you could not get discovery. Now you cannot even get into court under this amendment. Let us talk about something other. In eliminating the joint and several liability, a man hires two hoodlums to kill his mother-in-law. The woman is horribly disfigured. Judgment is collected ultimately by the woman against the husband and the two hoodlums. She can only collect approximately a third because no longer is there joint and several liability. Another case: A Member of Congress is liabled by his local newspaper, charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. No longer under this amendment is there joint and several liability. He sues the newspaper and the two reporters.…
Source
govinfo.gov




