United States Supreme Court has long held that a “statute must be construed, if fairly possible, so as to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, but also grave doubts upon that score.” Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose, 289 U.S. 373, 379, 53 S.Ct. 620, 77 L.Ed. 1265 (1933). Article I, § 18 of the North Carolina Constitution provides that “every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law; and right and justice shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay.” The North Carolina Supreme Court interprets this provision as only applying to “vested rights:” In cases involving latent harm, a plaintiffs cause of action would not yet have accrued at the time the statute of repose passed; thu 200 (R.I.1984) (<HOLDING>); Heath v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 123 N.H. 512,
holding 10year statute of repose violated state constitutional guarantee of access to courts after plaintiff was injured when manlift elevator collapsed and fell holding 10year statute of repose violated state constitutional right to remedy in personal injury and wrongful death suits holding 10year statute of repose violates state constitutions guarantee of open courts in case involving defective machine holding that while mississippi courts typically apply domestic statutes of limitations tennessees 10year statute of repose applied to cut off plaintiffs right of action holding wrongful death action barred by 10year construction statute of repose