Court Opinion

ID: 9691259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:19:27.562523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:07.926379
License: Public Domain

GIERKE, Justice.
Bonny Hanson, plaintiff, appeals from a district court judgment dismissing her products liability action on the basis that the claims against the manufacturer were *320barred by § 28-01.1-02 of the North Dakota Century Code. Hanson challenges the constitutionality of § 28-01.1-02. We conclude that § 28-01.1-02 violates Article I, § 21, of the North Dakota Constitution, and, accordingly, reverse and remand for trial.
Ingram Manufacturing Company, Inc., manufactured a multi-ton earth packer on November 13, 1963. This earth packer was sold to Krider Equipment Company of Fargo in April of 1964. Krider sold the earth packer to the State of North Dakota, which in turn sold it to Williams County on July 9, 1980.
Todd Hefta, the 22-year-old son of Hanson, was an employee of the city of Willi-ston at the time the earth packer was borrowed by the city from Williams County. Hefta was assigned to do various tasks with fellow city employee Wayne Cour-chene. Their tasks included operating the earth packer.
On August 24, 1983, as Courchene mounted the packer to start it, Hefta walked behind the packer to get a drink of water from a cooler that was sitting on the back of the machine. Before starting the machine, Courchene allegedly checked the clutch to make sure it was out of gear. As Hefta was getting a drink of water, Cour-chene touched the starter button and the earth packer “jumped backwards”, running over Hefta and killing him.
On April 19, 1984, Hanson filed an action for wrongful death pursuant to Chapter 32-21, N.D.C.C., alleging negligence, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability in tort.1 Ingram moved for summary judgment of dismissal of Hanson’s complaint on the basis of § 28-01.1-02(1), N.D.C.C., which provides:

“28-01.1-02. Statute of limitation.

“1. There shall be no recovery of damages for personal injury, death, or damage to property caused by a defective product, except as provided in subsections 4 and 5, unless the injury, death, or damage occurred within ten years of the date of initial purchase for use or consumption, or within eleven years of the date of manufacture of a product, where that action is based upon, or arises out of, any of the following:
a. Breach of any implied warranties.
b. Defects in design, inspection, testing, or manufacture.
c. Failure to warn.
d. Failure to properly instruct in the use of a product.” [Emphasis added.]
The district court granted Ingram's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Hanson’s claim against Ingram.
The basic issue on appeal is whether § 28-01.1-02, N.D.C.C., the “statute of limitation” of the North Dakota Products Liability Act, violates our Federal or State Constitution.
In 1977 the Legislature adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 4030, which directed the Legislative Council to study the availability and affordability of products liability insurance and related insurance problems in North Dakota.
After receiving considerable testimony, a majority of the committee members recommended that the Legislative Assembly pass two bills, i.e., House Bills Nos. 1075 and 1589. Together, these two bills form the North Dakota Products Liability Act. After some minor amendments, these bills were passed by the 46th Legislative Assembly and are now codified in Chapter 28-01.1, N.D.C.C.2
During discussions on the North Dakota Products Liability Act, much of the testimony received by the legislative committees concerned the “statute of limitation” [112 of H.B. No. 1075, and now codified as § 28-01.1-02(1), N.D.C.C.]. Proponents of *321the Products Liability Act argued that the cost of products liability insurance had become unaffordable to many North Dakota manufacturers and that the statute of limitation was essential in order to carry out the intent of the bill, i.e., to reduce the cost of products liability insurance in North Dakota. Opponents argued that the bill was unfair and it could not accomplish its intended purpose because products liability insurance rates were set on a national basis, not by individual state policies.3
While the Products Liability Act was supported by a majority of the members of the Interim Committee on Products Liability, a minority of the committee members strongly opposed the new “statute of limitation”. The minority members of the committee believed this part of the Act would unfairly limit the compensation available to innocent victims and questioned the constitutionality of such a provision. Governor Link, in his veto message, also questioned the fairness of this “statute of limitation”.4

Statute of Repose

While § 28-01.1-02, N.D.C.C., is captioned “Statute of limitation”, this section is, in effect, a statute of repose. Statutes of repose are different from statutes of limitation, although they have comparable effects. See Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985); McGovern, The Variety, Policy and Constitutionality of Product Liability Statutes of Repose, 30 Am.U.L.Rev. 579, 582-587 (1981). A statute of limitation bars a right of action unless it is filed within a specified period of time after an injury occurs. The purpose of a statute of limitation is to prevent “plaintiffs from sleeping on their legal rights to the detriment of defendants”. Dickson, The Statute of Limitations in North Dakota’s Products Liability Act: An Exercise in Futility?, 59 N.D.L.Rev. 551, 556 (1983); State v. Halverson, 69 N.D. 225, 226, 285 N.W. 292, 293 (1939). A statute of limitation period commences either upon the occurrence of an injury, or when the injury is discovered. A statute of limitation must allow a reasonable time after a cause of action arises for the filing of a lawsuit. Wilson v. Iseminger, 185 U.S. 55, 62, 22 S.Ct 573, 575, 46 L.Ed. 804, 807 (1902); Berry, supra.
A statute of repose terminates any right of action after a specific time has elapsed, regardless of whether or not there has as yet been an injury. Frumer and Friedman, Products Liability, § 16C(2)(i) (1985). A statute of repose period begins to run from the occurrence of some event other than the event of an injury that gives rise to a cause of action and, therefore, bars a cause of action before the injury occurs. A person injured after the statutory period of repose is left without a remedy for the injury. Because of this harsh result, many courts have found statutes of repose to be unconstitutional. Berry, supra; Kennedy v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 471 A.2d 195 (R.I.1984); Heath v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 123 N.H. 512, 464 A.2d 288 (1983); Lankford v. Sullivan, Long & Hagerty, 416 So.2d 996 (Ala.1982); Phillips v. ABC Builders, Inc., 611 P.2d 821 (Wyo.1980); Saylor v. Hall, 497 S.W.2d 218 (Ky.1973).
Courts which have declared statutes of repose unconstitutional have done so on the basis of different constitutional rights. Some courts have relied at least in part on “open courts” provisions in State constitutions. Berry, supra; Daugaard v. Baltic Co-op. Bldg. Supply Assoc., 349 N.W.2d *322419 (S.D.1984); Lankford, supra 416 So.2d 996.5 Courts have also relied in part on the due process clauses of State constitutions. Berry, supra. Statutes of repose have also been declared violative of equal protection provisions of Federal and State constitutions. Heath, supra 464 A.2d 288. Some courts have used a combination of these constitutional provisions along with state wrongful death constitutional provisions to invalidate statutes of repose. Berry, supra; Kennedy, supra 471 A.2d 195; Saylor, supra 497 S.W.2d 218.6 Contrarily, a number of courts have held statutes of repose to be constitutional under these same constitutional provisions.7

Constitutional Question

In challenging the constitutionality of § 28-01.1-02, N.D.C.C., Hanson relies upon Article I, § 9, of the North Dakota Constitution which provides, in pertinent part, the following:
“Section 9. All courts shall be open, and every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due process of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay....”
Hanson also invokes the following part of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...”
and § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which, in pertinent part, provides:
“§ 1. ... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Hanson’s arguments marshal the “open courts” provision of the North Dakota Con*323stitution, along with due process and equal protection challenges.8
We apply an equal protection analysis to § 28-01.1-02. Essential to our analysis of the constitutionality of this statute is a focus on the application of the appropriate standard of review.

Standard of Review

We discussed the three standards of review applicable when a statute is challenged on equal protection grounds in Johnson v. Hasset, 217 N.W.2d 771 (N.D.1974). We noted that there is a group of cases involving “inherently suspect” or “fundamental interest” classifications which are analyzed under the heightened level of review, strict scrutiny.9 Johnson, supra, 217 N.W.2d at 775. The rational basis standard of review is at the other end of the spectrum. When applying this standard of review, a legislative classification will be sustained unless it is patently arbitrary and bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. Johnson, supra; Arneson v. Olson, 270 N.W.2d 125, 133 (N.D.1978). Finally, in Johnson, we noted that there is an intermediate standard of review which, although less clearly defined, required a “close correspondence between statutory classification and legislative goals”. Arneson, supra 270 N.W.2d at 133.10
*324When applying the intermediate standard of review in Johnson, supra, we concluded that the North Dakota automobile guest statute was unconstitutional because it created an arbitrary distinction between paying and nonpaying guests which was not justified by the underlying purposes of the statute.
Shortly after our decision in Johnson, supra, we were again faced with an equal protection question in Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc. v. North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy, 219 N.W.2d 140 (N.D.1974).11 When analyzing the equal protection claim, we refrained from applying the intermediate standard of review adopted in Johnson, supra, and, instead, applied the lower rational basis test. Snyder’s Drug Stores, supra 219 N.W.2d at 150. We noted that “[sjtate legislatures are presumed to have acted within their constitutional power despite the fact that, in practice, their laws result in some inequality”. Snyder’s Drug Stores, supra 219 N.W.2d at 153. Applying the rational basis test under this presumption, we concluded that the pharmacy operating requirements of § 43-15-35(5), N.D.C.C., did not violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions.
In Arneson, supra 270 N.W.2d 125, we again looked at the three standards of review applicable when a statute is challenged on the basis of equal protection.12 Ameson involved a challenge to a statute limiting “professional liability of qualifying health care providers to patients electing to be bound”. Arneson, supra 270 N.W.2d at 126. We determined that the intermediate standard should be applied and, in doing so, concluded that the statute violated the equal protection provision of the North Dakota Constitution. Arneson, supra 270 N.W.2d at 136.
The intermediate standard of review was also applied in Herman v. Magnuson, 277 N.W.2d 445 (N.D.1979), and Patch v. Sebelius, 320 N.W.2d 511 (N.D.1982). In Herman, supra, we were presented with the question of whether or not the 90-day notice requirement regarding actions against municipalities for defective streets and bridges was violative of the equal protection clause of our State Constitution. When applying the intermediate standard, we concluded that the statute established “a close correspondence between the statutory classification and legislative goals” and was therefore constitutional. Herman, supra 277 N.W.2d at 454.
Before applying the intermediate standard of review in Patch, supra 320 N.W.2d at 513, we said:
“We begin with the well-established principle that an enactment of the Legislature is presumed to be valid. This presumption is conclusive unless it is clearly shown that the statute contravenes the State or Federal Constitution. [Citations omitted.] Moreover, if a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which would render it of doubtful constitutionality and one of which would not, the latter must be adopted.”
We also said that, “It is well established that a legislative enactment is not unconsti*325tutional merely because it is not all-embracing and does not attempt to cure all the evils within its reach”. Patch, supra 320 N.W.2d at 514. In Patch, we concluded that a statute that conditioned a tort victim’s right to recover from the state upon the state’s purchase of liability insurance was constitutional under the intermediate level of review.
In the past we have not been able to establish a bright line test for determining when the rational basis test or the intermediate standard should apply. The rational basis test is most often applied in economic and social matters. The intermediate standard of review is usually applied when “an important substantive right” is involved. Heath, supra 464 A.2d at 294.
While there are economic consequences for manufacturers and their insurers underlying the legislation in question, we believe our focus must be on the individuals affected. We are unwilling to view human life and safety as simply a matter of economics. Therefore, we agree with the New Hampshire Supreme Court that the right to recover for personal injuries is an important substantive right. Heath, supra 464 A.2d at 294.13 We conclude that the appropriate standard of review to be applied in the present case is the intermediate standard or the close correspondence test.14

*326
Classification

The classification established by § 28-01.1-02, N.D.C.C., distinguishes between persons who are injured by a product that was initially purchased more than 10 years before or manufactured more than 11 *327years before an injury, and those persons who are injured by a product which was purchased less than 10 years before or manufactured less than 11 years before an injury. The question, therefore, is whether or not there is such a close correspondence between this statutory classification and the legislative goals as would justify this classification. Patch, supra 320 N.W.2d at 513; Herman, supra 277 N.W.2d at 454.
The rationale of products liability statutes of repose are threefold:
“First, the fact that a product has been used safely for a substantial period of time is some indication that it was not defective at the time of delivery. Second, if a product seller is not aware of a claim, the passing of time may make it extremely difficult to construct a good defense because of the obstacle of securing evidence.... The third rationale is that persons ought to be allowed, as a matter of policy, to plan their affairs with a reasonable degree of certainty.” Department of Commerce, Model Uniform Products Liability Act, Analysis § 110(B)(1), 44 Fed.Reg. 62,713, 62,734 (1979).
It is the third rationale which “goes to the heart of the product liability rate-setting problem”, 44 Fed.Reg. at 62,734,15 and which appears to have motivated the passage of the North Dakota Products Liability Act. This is indicated by the goal of the Legislature explained in § 28-01.1-01, N.D. C.C., which reads as follows:

“28-01.1-01. Declaration of legislative findings and intent.

“1. The legislative assembly finds that the number of lawsuits and claims for damages and the amount of judgments and settlements arising from defective products has substantially increased in recent years. Because of these increases, the insurance industry has drastically increased the cost of products liability insurance. The effect of increased insurance premiums and increased claims has increased product cost through manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers passing the cost of premiums to the consumer. Certain product manufacturers are discouraged from continuing to provide and manufacture certain products because of the high cost and possible unavailability of products liability insurance.
“2. Because of these recent trends and for the purpose of alleviating the adverse effects which these trends are producing in the manufacturing industry, it is necessary to protect the public interest by enacting measures designed to encourage private insurance companies to continue to provide products liability insurance.
“3. It is the purpose of sections 28-01.-1-01 through 28-01.1-05 to provide a reasonable time within which actions may be commenced against manufacturers, while limiting the *328time to a specific period for which products liability insurance premiums can be reasonably and accurately calculated; and to provide other procedural changes to expedite early evaluation and settlement of claims.”
We do not question the Legislature’s conclusion that there may have been a “crisis” facing North Dakota manufacturers because of unaffordable products liability insurance. We also recognize the importance of legislative action in attempting to alleviate this problem. We, however, question the solution. We are concerned about statutes which arbitrarily deny one class of persons important substantive rights to life and safety which are available to other persons.
Property rights (“economics”) may often be affected by arbitrary time periods, e.g., ten-year and twenty-year statutes of limitation. But when we are dealing with human life and safety we believe that more is required for a justification than a reference to the economics of suppliers of goods. Some rational basis must be advanced for the selection of the period of years for “bar” or “repose”, other than the economic interests of manufacturers or suppliers.
We agree with the following analysis by the Alabama Supreme Court, which suggests a less arbitrary means of reaching the legislative goals, in Lankford, supra 416 So.2d at 1003:
“The harshness of an absolute date-of-use limitation period is evident when compared to the Model Uniform Product Liability Act proposed by the Commerce Department. Section 110(B)(1) of the Act states:
‘In claims that involve harm caused more than ten (10) years after time of delivery, a presumption arises that the harm was caused after the useful safe life had expired. This presumption may only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.' (Emphasis added.)
“The Model Act merely creates a presumption and does not provide for an absolute cut-off date.”
While there certainly can be legislatively created classifications which bear a close correspondence to the legislative goals, i.e., Herman v. Magnuson and Patch v. Sebelius, supra, we can discern no such close correspondence between the classification created by § 28-01.1-02, N.D. C.C., and the stated legislative goals as would justify the unequal treatment wrought by this statute. See Arneson, supra 270 N.W.2d at 135; Melland v. Johanneson, 160 N.W.2d 107 (N.D.1968). Accordingly, we conclude that § 28-01.1-02, N.D.C.C., violates Article I, § 21, of the North Dakota Constitution.

Conclusion

Having held that § 28-01.1-02, N.D.C.C., violates Article I, § 21, of the North Dakota Constitution, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand this case for trial.
MESCHKE and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur.

. In her original complaint Hanson also alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and violation of OSHA regulations. Those allegations, however, are no longer material to this case.

. House Bill No. 1075, after being initially passed by the 46th Session of the North Dakota Legislature, was vetoed by the Governor. The Legislature, however, overrode the Governor’s veto.

. The argument that a statute which has the purpose of controlling insurance rates which are set on a national basis cannot achieve its purpose was also presented to us in Arneson v. Olson, 270 N.W.2d 125, 136 (N.D.1978). In Arneson, after observing that a statute limiting the recovery in medical malpractice cases could not achieve its intended purpose, this court held that it violated the equal protection provision of the North Dakota Constitution.

. Since its passage, the North Dakota Products Liability Act has not gone unchallenged [See Dickson, The Statute of Limitations in North Dakota's Products Liability Act: An Exercise in Futility?, 59 N.D.L.Rev. 551 (1983); Kraft, The North Dakota Equity for Tortfeasors Struggle—Judicial Action vs. Legislative Over-Reaction, 56 N.D.L.Rev. 67 (1980) ].

. Recently in Andrews v. O'Hearn, M.D., 387 N.W.2d 716 (N.D.1986) we discussed Article I, § 9. The Andrewses relied upon this provision and construed it to be a guarantee of a remedy through our state judicial system. We noted that the open courts provision has never been interpreted by this court to be an absolute right, Andrews, supra:
"The non-absolute character of Section 9 is readily apparent by a review of this court's decisions interpreting that section as not requiring a remedy for every alleged wrong. And, although this court has, on occasion, used this provision of the North Dakota Constitution to correct a substantive error, we do not believe that Section 9 was intended to promote this court to the position of a super-legislature in charge of ensuring perfect justice and complete remedies, thereby supplanting the traditional function of the jury, the standards employed to evaluate a jury decision, and the rules of evidence, such as Rule 606(b), that protect jury independence by preventing judicial overseeing of the internal workings of the jury. Although there may be occasions where this State constitutional provision is properly employed to protect a litigant against a deprivation of due process, to avert a harsh result that is otherwise inevitable, or to prevent the destruction of the only opportunity for an appropriate remedy, we do not believe that such a situation exists here.” Andrews, supra 387 N.W.2d at 723.

. The North Dakota Constitution does not contain a specific wrongful death civil recovery provision.

. Pullum v. Cincinnati, 476 So.2d 657 (Fla.1985) [statute of repose does not violate equal protection clause]; Tetterton v. Long Mfg. Co. Inc., 314 N.C. 44, 332 S.E.2d 67 (1985) [statute of repose does not violate equal protection or State constitutional provision on open courts]; Davis v. Whiting Corp., 66 Or.App. 541, 674 P.2d 1194 (1984), cert. denied, 297 Or. 82, 679 P.2d 1367 (1984) [statute of repose does not violate due process, equal protection, or access to court provisions of the constitution]; Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F.Supp. 100 (M.D.Tenn.1983) [statute of repose does not violate open court provisions of State constitution]; Yarbro v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 655 P.2d 822 (Colo.1983) [statute of repose does not violate due process or equal protection]; Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 275 Ind. 520, 418 N.E.2d 207 (1982) [statute of repose does not violate State open court provision]; Thornton v. Mono Mfg. Co., 99 Ill.App.3d 722, 54 Ill.Dec. 657, 425 N.E.2d 522 (1981) [statute of repose does not violate due process]; Rosenberg v. Town of North Bergen, 61 N.J. 190, 293 A.2d 662 (1972) [statute of repose does not violate equal protection clause of Federal Constitution].

. Although Hanson has not specifically identified our State constitutional provisions on equal protection and due process, questions as to these provisions have been raised. After referring to the United States constitutional provisions on equal protection and due process, Hanson primarily looks to our State Constitution. She refers to State cases to support her proposition and applies constitutional standards of review based on North Dakota equal protection and due process case law.
The North Dakota constitutional provision guaranteeing equal protection of the laws is Article I, § 21, which provides:
"Section 21. No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted which may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the legislative assembly; nor shall any citizen or class of citizens be granted privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens."
The following part of Article I, § 12, of the North Dakota Constitution guarantees due process of law:
“Section 12. ... No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

. Cases in which we have applied strict scrutiny include State ex rel. Olson v. Maxwell, 259 N.W.2d 621, 631 (N.D.1977) [classification based upon sex denies equal protection], and In Interest of G.H., 218 N.W.2d 441, 447 (N.D.1974) [denying a child the right to a free education because the child is handicapped violates equal protection and other State constitutional provisions].
Hanson argues that we should apply the strict level of scrutiny. As noted earlier, strict scrutiny tests will be applied when the classification involves a fundamental right or an inherently suspect class. Hanson argues that a fundamental interest is involved because the statute infringes upon one’s right to remedy in our courts.
The Legislature has determined that persons in Hanson’s circumstances are not entitled to a cause of action. The Legislature in effect has declared that the injuries suffered by this class of persons, while real, will not be legally recognized. There are many injuries without a legally recognized cause of action against anyone. Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F.Supp. 100 (M.D.Tenn.1983); Thornton v. Mono Mfg. Co., 99 Ill.App.3d 722, 54 Ill.Dec. 657, 425 N.E.2d 522 (1981); Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 275 Ind. 520, 418 N.E.2d 207 (1981); Rosenberg v. Town of North Bergen, 61 N.J. 190, 293 A.2d 662 (1972). See also Whetham v. Bismarck Hospital, 197 N.W.2d 678 (N.D.1972), in which we held that a mother was not entitled to recover damages for the mental anguish she suffered after witnessing her daughter’s injury negligently caused by an employee of Bismarck Hospital.
The appropriate question is whether the right to this particular cause of action is a fundamental right. We are not alone in concluding that the right to recover for personal injuries is not a fundamental right. Heath v. Sears, Roebuck Inc., 123 N.H. 512, 464 A.2d 288 (1983). Since the classification is not based upon race or some other immutable characteristic determined by the accident of birth, we hold that it is not a fundamental right. Accordingly, we do not apply the strict scrutiny standard of review in this case.

. Ingram urges that we apply the rational basis test and cites us to several cases which have done so when scrutinizing a statute of repose. Klein v. Catalano, 386 Mass. 701, 437 N.E.2d 514, 522 (1982); Lamb v. Wedgwood South Corp., 308 N.C. 419, 302 S.E.2d 868, 888 (1983); Stutts v. Ford Motor Co., 574 F.Supp. 100, 105 (M.D.Tenn.1983); Yarbro v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 655 P.2d 822, 825 (Colo.1983); Thornton v. *324Mono Mfg. Co., 99 Ill.App.3d 722, 54 Ill.Dec. 657, 661, 425 N.E.2d 522, 526 (1981). Neither Ingram nor Hanson concede that the intermediate standard is the proper standard of review. However, both parties argue that they would be successful if the intermediate standard of review is applied.

. Snyder’s Drug Stores, supra 219 N.W.2d 140, came to us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc., 414 U.S. 156, 94 S.Ct. 407, 38 L.Ed.2d 379 (1973). In the first Snyder’s Drug Stores case, being bound by Liggett Co. v. Baldridge, 278 U.S. 105, 49 S.Ct. 57, 73 L.Ed. 204 (1928), we held the requirements to operate a pharmacy mandated by § 43-15-35(5), N.D.C.C., to be violative of the due process clause of the Federal Constitution: Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc. v. North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy, 202 N.W.2d 140 (N.D.1972). On appeal, the United States Supreme Court overruled Liggett, declaring it to be "a derelict in the stream of the law", and reversed our decision. 414 U.S. at 167, 94 S.Ct. at 414, 38 L.Ed.2d at 387.

. Section 20 of the North Dakota Constitution referred to in Ameson was renumbered as Article I, § 21, in 1980, pursuant to § 46-03-11.1, N.D.C.C.

. This is also consistent with Herman, supra, and Patch, supra, in which we applied the intermediate standard of review to statutes which affected one’s right to recover for personal injuries.

. Other courts have applied an intermediate standard of review when faced with an equal protection challenge to a statute of repose: Berry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 717 P.2d 670 (Utah 1985); Heath, supra 464 A.2d 288; Lankford, supra 416 So.2d 996; Kennedy, supra 471 A.2d 195. Because we are applying the standard of review applied in those cases, we believe a discussion of those cases is useful to an understanding of our holding today.
In Berry, supra, the Utah statute of repose stated that: "No action shall be brought ... more than six years after the date of initial purchase ... or ten years after the date of manufacture”. Our statute provides that: "There shall be no recovery of damages ... unless the injury, death, or damage occurred within ten years of the date of the initial purchase ... or within eleven years of the date of manufacture.” Under the Utah statute, a person injured one day before the end of the prescribed statutory period of time would have had only that day in which to file a claim. The statute of limitation normally granted to an injured person under those circumstances would be cut short. Under our statute, however, that person would be entitled to the full period of time prescribed in the statute of limitation. Our statute does not cut short the statute of limitation, i.e., reduce the period of time in which an action may be brought, providing the injury occurs within the ten-year or eleven-year period, whichever is appropriate.
The Utah court refers to the following part of Wilson v. Iseminger, supra 185 U.S. 55, at 62, 22 S.Ct. 573 at 575, to suggest that the Utah statute of repose is unconstitutional because under certain circumstances it will not "allow a reasonable time after a cause of action arises for the filing of an action”:
"It may be properly conceded that all statutes of limitation must proceed on the idea that the party has full opportunity afforded him to try his right in the courts. A statute could not bar the existing rights of claimants without affording this opportunity; if it should attempt to do so, it would not be a statute of limitations, but an unlawful attempt to extinguish rights arbitrarily, whatever might be the purport of its provisions.”
This requirement is not relevant to our statute of repose because, under our statute, if the injury occurs within the prescribed statutory period of time, the injured person still has the full time provided by the statute of limitation in which to bring an action.
The Utah court held that a legislature, when eliminating or restricting a cause of action, must provide "an effective and reasonable alternative remedy” [emphasis added]. We recognize that this differs somewhat from the view expressed on this subject in Arneson v. Olson, 270 N.W.2d 125, 135 (N.D.1978), wherein we stated:
"... while there need not always be a quid pro quo, any limitation or elimination of a pre-existing right may not be arbitrarily imposed.”
We note that in Duke Power Company v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), the United States Supreme Court may have left the issue of the need for a satisfactory alternative remedy, or a “quid pro quo ", in some doubt. In applying the “quid pro quo " doctrine, the court noted:
"Initially, it is not at all clear that the Due Process Clause in fact requires that a legislatively enacted compensation scheme either duplicate the recovery at common law or provide a reasonable substitute remedy. However, we need not resolve this question here *326since the Price-Anderson Act does, in our view, provide a reasonably just substitute for the common-law or state tort law remedies it replaces." Duke Power Company, supra, 438 U.S. at 88, 98 S.Ct. at 2638.
Another differing factor in Berry, supra, is that Utah has a state constitutional section providing that ‘‘[t]he right of action to recover damages for injuries resulting in death, shall never be abrogated”. North Dakota has no corresponding state constitutional provision.
Finally, Berry, supra, differs from the case at hand in that Utah’s statute of repose does not provide the exceptions which are available in § 28-01.1-02(3), N.D.C.C., which provides as follows:

“28-01.1-02. Statute of limitation.

[[Image here]]
"3. If a manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer issues a recall of a product in any state, modifies a product, or becomes aware of any defect in a product at any time, and fails to notify or warn a user of the product who is subsequently injured or damaged as a result of the defect, the provisions of subsection 1 shall not bar any action against the manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer based upon, or arising out of, the defect."
The Alabama case of Lankford v. Sullivan, Long & Hagerty, 416 So.2d 996 (Ala.1982), also has some features which differ from our case. Like Utah, the Alabama statute of repose focuses on the date upon which a cause of action must be brought and not the date of the injury. Also like Utah, the Alabama court advocates the quid pro quo concept: that the Legislature must provide an adequate substitute for any cause of action which it abolishes. In addition, the Alabama court distinguishes between a cause of action created by the Legislature and one created by the courts. In Lankford, the Alabama court applied a stricter standard of review because the legislation affected a common law cause of action as opposed to a legislatively created cause of action. This suggests that a cause of action created by the Legislature may be inherently less important than a cause of action created by the courts and appears to place the courts in a position superior to that of the Legislature in an area of policy making. We do not believe this philosophy can be adopted in North Dakota in light of § 1-01-06, N.D.C.C., which provides: "In this state there is no common law in any case where the law is declared by the code.”, and our long application of this rule. Kaylor v. Iseman Mobile Homes, 369 N.W.2d 101, 103 (N.D.1985); Wagner Bros., Inc. v. City of Williston, 335 N.W.2d 328, 331 (N.D.1983); Dorgan v. Kouba, 274 N.W.2d 167, 169 (N.D.1979); Anderson v. Blixt, 72 N.W.2d 799, 807 (N.D.1955); Reeves & Co. v. Russell, 28 N.D. 265, 148 N.W. 654, 659 (N.D.1914). Section 1-01-06 was first adopted in 1877, twelve years before our State Constitution, and has gone unaltered since that time. This illustrates the long established policy in our state that statutory law has precedence over the common law. Section 2 of the Transition Schedule, adopted along with our State Constitution in 1889, read:
“Section 2. All laws now in force in the territory of Dakota, which are not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations or be altered or repealed."
There is nothing repugnant about § 1-01-06. For a case in which we resorted to territorial law to determine the meaning of our State Constitution, see State v. Buehler, 125 N.W.2d 155 (N.D.1963).
Kennedy, supra 471 A.2d 195, differs from this case for the reasons common to Lankford and Berry, supra, and also for other reasons. The Rhode Island Constitution, which guarantees “a certain remedy ... for all injuries”, appears on its face to be broader than Article I, § 9, of the North Dakota Constitution. The Rhode Island statute of repose does not include exceptions equivalent to § 28-01.1-02(3).
We agree substantially with the analysis of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Heath, supra. However, we must also recognize differing factors in that case. First, the New Hampshire Constitution has a provision virtually identical to the provision cited above in the Rhode Island Constitution. For this reason, it appears that the New Hampshire Constitution grants broader rights in insuring that its residents are "entitled to a certain remedy ... for all injuries” received. The New Hampshire statute of repose is also similar to the statutes of repose mentioned in the above cases in that it focuses on the date upon which a cause of action must be brought and not the date of the injury.
It should also be noted that the cases above cite to and in some instances partially rely upon Batilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392 So.2d 874 (Fla.1980), or Overland Const. Co. v. Sirmons, 369 So.2d 572 (Fla.1979), in which the Florida Supreme Court concluded that the statutes of repose deny access to the courts, and, thus, violated the open courts provision of Article I, § 21, of the Florida Constitution. Article I, § 21, of the Florida Constitution is virtually identical to Article I, § 9, of the North Dakota Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court, however, has “recedefd] from [those] decisionfs]". Pullum v. Cincinnati, Inc., 476 So.2d 657, 659 (Fla.1985). In Pullum the Florida Supreme Court held that a statute of repose did not violate Article I, § 21, of the Florida Constitution. Pullum, supra 476 So.2d at 659.

. The Department of Commerce made the following findings regarding the problem of uncertainty in product liability insurance:

"Sec. 101. Findings

"(A) Sharply rising product liability insurance premiums have created serious problems in commerce resulting in:
“(1) Increased prices of consumer and industrial products;
“(2) Disincentives for innovation and for the development of high-risk but potentially beneficial products;
“(3) An increase in the number of product sellers attempting to do business without product liability insurance coverage, thus jeopardizing both their continued existence and the availability of compensation to injured persons; and
“(4) Legislative initiatives enacted in a crisis atmosphere that may, as a result, unreasonably curtail the rights of product liability claimants.
“(B) One cause of these problems is that product liability law is fraught with uncertainty and sometimes reflects an imbalanced consideration of the interests it affects. The rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and are subject to rapid and substantial change. These facts militate against predictability of litigation outcome.
“(C) Insurers have cited this uncertainty and imbalance as justifications for setting rates and premiums that, in fact, may not reflect actual product risk or liability losses.” 44 Fed.Reg. at 62,716.