COLUMBIA--A venomous daylong feud concerning a bill limiting lawsuits ended in a deal Wednesday that pushed the legislation closer to Gov. Mark Sanford's desk.

House members ultimately voted 115-to-0 to adopt the Senate's changes to the bill that restricts liability and jury awards in non-medical tort cases. But not before touching off a procedural filibuster full of personal attacks, cursing and intense rhetoric from those on both sides of the issue -- actions some members said would tarnish House relations months to come.

The Senate approved the House's version of the bill last week, changing only one provision. A majority of House members agreed to the change, but the opposition, led by Rep. James Smith, D-Columbia, said an ambiguous provision in the bill could leave victims with less or no money.

Smith came armed with about 8,000 amendments that could have held up passage for more than 45 days straight. House members began to change the rules to limit Smith's ability to hold up the bill, but compromised before it was needed.

Smith withdrew his amendments after Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, a Charleston Republican, guaranteed that language clarifying those parts of the bill would be put into the medical malpractice bill in the Senate.

The House already approved the medical malpractice legislation, and McConnell promised it would pass the Senate.

The added sentence spells out that plaintiffs who are partly liable would not get penalized twice when it came time to recover jury awards.

The negotiations didn't change the central parts of the bill, which limits wealthy defendants' liability, restricts the lawsuits' venue and decreases the time builders are responsible for construction flaws.

After the legislation is ratified next week, the measure will be sent to the governor, who is expected to sign the legislation.

"Obviously getting a tort reform bill to the governor's desk that will make the state more competitive is a good thing," Sanford's spokesman Will Folks said.

DAMAGE DONE

While the bill didn't change much, the debate could alter how the House conducts business now that both sides have demonstrated the extreme lengths they are willing to go.

Minority party members believe they found a successful way to make themselves heard by the majority.

"I hope that nobody has to resort to putting up 8,000 amendments to make a point," said Minority Leader Harry Ott, D-St. Matthews. "But it has kept us in the debate."

Republicans typically have such a substantial majority in the House that they rarely have to compromise with dissenters. But some Republicans acknowledged that Smith's line of attack worked.

"It's an effective strategy, but it's not fair to the process," said Rep. Wallace Scarborough, Charleston.

To counter Smith, the House Rules committee quietly tried to change the body's rules to substantially limit his capacity to hold up the debate with thousands of amendments.

The rules change, which would have needed to be approved by two-thirds of the House, was never evoked. But Speaker David Wilkins, R-Greenville, said it was a useful threat.

If Smith's tactics become standard operating procedure, Wilkins said he'd push for a permanent rule change next year. "No one favors filibuster by amendment," he said.

Regardless of whether the approach is used again, some members said the atmosphere on the House floor wouldn't be the same.

"There is so much personal animosity and otherwise right now that it is going to carry over past this session," said Rep. Bill Cotty, a Columbia Republican and former speaker.

Rep. Harry Cato, R-Greenville, said it was "the worst, most contentious debate" in some time. "I think all courtesy went out the window," he added.

Wilkins downplayed the tone of the debate, saying this is exactly how the legislative process should work.

"This week is a perfect example of democracy in action," he said.