Floor Packet Page No. 199                                                   

	
Amend CSHB 4, Article 5, as follows:                                         
	On page 41, line 11 through page 42, line 19 strike Sec. 
82.009 and substitute a new Sec. 82.009 to read as follows:
	Sec. 82.009. COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT STANDARDS.                      
	(a) In a products liability action brought against a product 
manufacturer, distributor, or seller, there is a rebuttable 
presumption that the product manufacturer, distributor, or seller 
is not liable for any injury to a claimant caused by some aspect of 
the formulation, labeling, or design of a product if the product 
manufacturer, distributor, or seller establishes that the 
product's formula, labeling, or design compiled with mandatory 
safety standards or regulations adopted and promulgated by the 
federal government, or any agency of the federal government, that 
were applicable to the product at the time of manufacture, and that 
governed the particular product risk allegedly by the claimant to 
have caused harm.  The claimant may rebut this presumption by 
establishing that:
		(1) the mandatory federal safety standards or 
regulations applicable to the product were inadequate to protect 
the public from unreasonable risks of injury or damage;
		(2) the manufacturer, before or after marketing the 
product, withheld from or misrepresented to the government or 
agency information that was material and relevant to the 
performance of the product and was causally related to the 
claimant's injury;
		(3) Congress included a "savings" provision, intending 
to permit state common law to apply to the field being regulated;
		(4) with respect to the manufacturer of a motor vehicle, 
or a component thereof, after the product was sold and before the 
alleged injury occurred, that the manufacturer failed to provide 
the federal government, or the governing agency of the federal 
government, with all incidents of which the manufacturer receives 
actual notice which involve fatalities or serious injuries which 
are alleged or proven to have been caused by a possible defect in 
such manufacturer's motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in the 
United States, or in a foreign country when the possible defect is 
in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is identical or 
substantially similar to a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment 
offered for sale in the United States; or
		(5) with respect to the manufacture of a tire, that the 
manufacturer failed to comply with the obligations set forth in the 
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and 
Documentation (TREAD) Act.
	(b) In a products liability action brought against a product 
manufacturer, distributor or seller, there is a rebuttable 
presumption that the product manufacturer, distributor, or seller 
is not liable for any injury to a claimant allegedly caused by some 
aspect of the formulation, labeling, or design of a product if the 
product manufacturer, distributor, or seller establishes that the 
product was subject to pre-market licensing or approval by the 
federal government or an agency of the federal government, that the 
manufacturer complied with all of the government's or agency's 
procedures and requirements with respect to pre-market licensing or 
approval, and that after full consideration of the product's risks 
and benefits the product was approved or licensed for sale by the 
government or agency.  The claimant may rebut this presumption by 
establishing that:
		(1) the standards or procedures used in the particular 
pre-market approval or licensing process were inadequate to protect 
the public from unreasonable risks of injury or damage;
		(2) the manufacturer, before or after pre-market 
approval or licensing of the product, withheld from or 
misrepresented to the government or agency information that was 
material and relevant to the performance of the product and was 
causally related to the claimant's injury;
		(3) the Congress included a "savings" provisions, 
intending to permit state common law to apply to the field being 
regulated; or
		(4) with respect to the manufacturer of a drug or 
medical device, after the product was sold and before the alleged 
injury occurred, that the manufacturer failed to provide the 
federal government, or the governing agency of the federal 
government, with all incidents of which the manufacturer receives 
actual notice which involve fatalities or serious injuries which 
are alleged or proved to have been caused by a possible defect in 
such manufacturer's product.
	(c) The rebuttal presumption created in sections (a) and (b) 
does not exist if the claimant demonstrates that the product has 
been withdrawn from the market.
	(d) The rebuttable presumption created in sections (a) and 
(b) does not exist if the claimant demonstrates that the product 
manufacture acted with gross neglect or malice.
	(e) This section does not extend to manufacturing flaws or 
defects even though the product manufacturer has complied with all 
quality control and manufacturing practices mandated by the state 
or federal governments or agencies.