Now that the S.C. House and S.C. Senate both have passed bills that would affect the conduct of lawsuits in South Carolina, readers may be tempted to think that rapid passage of a tort-reform law is now certain. Not necessarily.

The House bill, passed by a huge bipartisan margin, purports to improve the state's business climate by making it harder for individuals to recover huge jury awards from businesses. The unanimously passed compromise Senate bill, in contrast, has a narrow purpose: bringing down doctors' medical malpractice insurance rates by capping malpractice jury awards.

The Senate bill's passage doesn't mean that senators stand ready to approve the House's sweeping approach to lawsuit reform. Nor does the House bill's passage mean that representatives would approve a bill that touches only the tort of medical malpractice.

It's way too early in the 2005 session for us to suggest what should be in any tort-reform bill that reaches Gov. Mark Sanford's desk - though the governor seems to think the House bill is more urgent.

Here in the non-Columbia real world, however, the Senate's bill, the centerpiece of which would impose a $350,000 cap on punitive damages, is more urgent. The state's medical community has made a persuasive case that the galloping cost of malpractice insurance has driven doctors out of high-risk specialties such as neurosurgery and obstetrics while keeping younger doctors from replacing them. The growing scarcity of specialists poses a threat to the health of some S.C. residents while driving up health costs for all.

But passage of the Senate bill became possible only after a filibuster forced senators to raise the proposed damages cap by $100,000. That bodes ill for the House bill, which performs radical surgery on the S.C. torts code.

The Senate's bipartisan objective was to ensure that residents who suffered medical injuries receive adequate care. The House's bipartisan objectives, in contrast, were to restrict public access to the courts, take dollars out of the pockets of liability lawyers and limit liability for offenses to those directly responsible for them.

There well might be some merit in these objectives. Certainly, we are willing to be persuaded of that.

The desire here is only to note that the Senate doesn't appear to be in the mood to take a scalpel to the entire tort code. Indeed, its bill specifically states that the Senate reforms apply only to the tort of medical malpractice.

Those who find the Senate's plodding, go-slow approach to tort reform infuriating should consider President George Washington's famous explanation of the function of the U.S. Senate: to be the saucer that cools the short-term passions that boil up in cup of the House. The result is more responsible lawmaking with fewer unanticipated negative consequences - sorely needed in this instance.