COLUMBIA, S.C. - House members gave key approval on Wednesday to a tort reform bill that could bring sanctions to people and lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits.

The bill, which was given second reading on a 79-32 vote, also puts a cap of $2 million on non-economic damages, like pain and suffering and economic distress and limits the venue where a lawsuit can be filed.

If a judge determines that a lawsuit is frivolous, the plaintiffs and lawyers could have to pay court costs and other fines.

Lawmakers were divided on the legislation. Supporters said the state's legal system has excessive lawsuits filed and awards paid out.

"The people of this state believe that our civil justice system is broken, and it's our responsibility to come back and try to fix it," said Rep. Bill Sandifer, R-Seneca.

But opponents said the legislation shuts the door of the legal system on ordinary citizens and instead benefits wrongdoers.

Some lawmakers said it was unfair to allow juries to decide on death penalties and prison sentences, yet limit them on the amount of damages they can award in a civil case.

Yet the group of doctors, insurers and other businessmen called South Carolina First who have backed the bill say they'd like to see the caps on damages lowered even more.

Cam Crawford, executive director of South Carolina First, said the bill is a positive step, but his group would like to see even tighter reforms. Legal reform affects economic development and access to quality health care, Crawford said.

Many health care professionals are getting out of the specialties of obstetrics, emergency care and surgery because the medical malpractice insurance is too high, Crawford said.

And having poor venue laws keep businesses from locating in South Carolina, he said.

The South Carolina Chamber of Commerce also supports the bill, but wants to see more limits on damages juries can award and other changes. The group plans to try to make the bill tougher when it gets to the state Senate.

Opponents say the bill puts too many restrictions on victims trying to file lawsuits.

Currently, a victim in a car accident can file a lawsuit in their county of residence, the county where the defendant lives or the county where the accident occurred. Under the bill, the suit could only be brought where a defendant lives or where the accident occurs.

Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, said he represented the family of a 3-year-old girl killed when the car her mother was driving was rear-ended by an 18-wheeler.

The proposed venue statute prohibits the girl's family from filing the case in another county where the jury may give them more money, Rutherford said. The bill protects the truck driver, he said.

"Go find the family of that 3-year-old little girl that was run over by that 18-wheeler and tell them that you don't think that trucking company or that trucker ought to be sued in Hampton County because he might have to pay a lot of money," Rutherford said.

The medical malpractice bill also was given second reading on a 91-25 vote. Rep. Doug Smith, R-Spartanburg, who sponsored the bill, said the goal of the proposal was to improve health care services by making the system more accountable.

The bill sets a $300,000 cap on awards for pain and suffering and establishes a procedure that must be followed before a person can file a lawsuit.

"It takes doctors out of the courtroom puts them back with their patients, and provides patients with a better, more effective, more accountable way to address and fix real problems," Smith said.