LAST YEAR, A FLORENCE County woman sued a doctor and medical clinic from Myrtle Beach, saying she had complications from the medicine he prescribed for her. The suit was filed in Hampton County.

A Beaufort County woman sued Continental Airlines, saying she was injured during a rough landing on a flight from Savannah to New Jersey. The suit was filed in Hampton County.

A Mexican restaurant in Richland County sued a Columbia Hardee's, alleging the Monster burger was too similar to a product it sold by the same name. The suit was filed in Hampton County.

And the list goes on, sometimes involving plaintiffs, defendants and incidents from outside not only the county but the state. It goes on because a 133-year-old state law allows people to sue in any county where a company has a presence, be it owning property or selling its goods or services. Railroad companies can be sued if their trains pass through a county, an auto manufacturer if there's a dealership there. The Continental suit claimed that the airline sells tickets over the Internet, and therefore does business in Hampton County.

The county's economic development commission reports that 583 civil lawsuits were filed in Hampton County last year -- or one for every 37 residents; 38 percent were filed by people who live in other counties or states, over incidents that occurred elsewhere.

They could have filed in just about any S.C. county. But they chose Hampton, for some combination of reasons that includes generous jurors and talented or well-connected lawyers and perhaps in some cases simply the county's reputation for jackpot justice.

County officials are convinced this situation, which gained national exposure with a Forbes magazine article last summer, is costing the poor county jobs. Forbes said Wal-Mart backed out of plans to build in Varnville -- and provide 225 jobs -- after a Columbia lawyer pointed out this would allow everyone in the country to sue Wal-Mart in Hampton County. Wal-Mart isn't talking, and the law firm responsible for most of the outside suits considers such suggestions akin to slander.

Frankly, it shouldn't matter whether the county's friendly juries are costing it jobs. The state law that lets plaintiffs exploit these jurors saddles the county's taxpayers with extra expenses to cover court costs for cases that should be tried in other counties or even other states. It forces residents to donate their time and serve as jurors in cases that should be heard elsewhere.

But even if there were no negative effect on any county, our wide-open venue law simply does not make sense. Perhaps it made sense in 1870, when owning a piece of property or doing business in a county tied a corporation to that county much more so than it does now. Today, it is an invitation for plaintiffs from all over the country to not only judge-shop but jury-shop -- to peruse our state for a judge they think will be kind to them and jurors they think will shower money on them.

That undermines public confidence in our judicial system. And for that reason alone it should be changed.

Certainly we should not go to the other extreme and require that all lawsuits be filed on the defendant's home turf. But neither should we allow this free-for-all. A bill filed last month by Sen. Glenn McConnell lets plaintiffs file suit where the incident occurred, where they live or where the corporation is headquartered.

There is no reason they should be allowed to file suit anywhere else. There is no good reason why the Legislature should not adopt this long-overdue change.