although Hyer was decided over 25 years ago and implicates every statute of repose directed at personal injuries in North Carolina, the legislature has not amended 1-50(6), § 1-52(16) or any other repose clause to include diseases. This omission is even more significant as the North Carolina Legislature has amended § 1-50 five times and § 1-52(16) eight times since Hyer, both statutes being barely a page. In construing statutes, it is presumed that the legislature acted with care, deliberation, and full knowledge of prior and existing law. State v. Benton, 276 N.C. 641, 658, 174 S.E.2d 793 (1970). As the North Carolina Legislature has had ample opportunity to amend these statutes, and has chosen not to, one could only assume that the legislature has found Hyer, Bullard, 874 (Fla.1980) (<HOLDING>); Also see, Leslie Calkins OToole, Wilder v.
holding statute barring all product liability suits if action is filed more than six years after date of first sale for use or consumption or ten years after date of manufacture unconstitutional as violating open courts provision holding that statute barring plaintiffs suit against manufacturer brought more than 12 years after date of sale as applied unconstitutionally denied plaintiffs access to courts holding that a domestic plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to more deference than a foreign plaintiffs holding the delays of more than six years did not amount to the denial of access to the courts holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit