I also believe instituting a LOSER PAYS clause in Tort cases would go a long way towards ending some of the more ridiculous abuses of our Tort system.
You may already be aware of this (and I'm sure atlaw is), but just in case: the U.S. is actually one of the only nations (and it may be the only nation) in which each party to a civil suit bears its own costs no matter who wins.
The proposal you suggest does get debated every once in a while among legal scholars and such, but it's one of those issues where there are good arguments on both sides and no clear winner.
The good argument for refraining from insituting "Loser Pays" seems to be that poor folks won't have access to our legal system if they're gonna be on the hook fer attorney's fees if they lose. However, I believe law firms will still take on good suits on a contingency basis; however, they would be far less inclined to launch spurrious lawsuits if they know they are gonna have to eat the costs if they lose. I think lawyers being a bit more picky in what lawsuits they are willing to pursue is an unmitigated good.
FReegards...MUD