Americans who have been astonished, if not angered, by the multitude of frivolous lawsuits that dot our legal system must surely welcome the Texas House’s passage of a bill that allows defendants to collect legal costs if they prevail. If now passed by the Texas Senate and signed by Gov. Rick Perry into law, it will ensure not only better justice across our state but could further invigorate Texas as fertile ground for business and jobs.

Yes, some fear passage of this “loser pays” bill into Texas law will make poor and middle-class folks less likely to take on goliaths of business. We suggest it will only make individuals brandishing dubious claims think twice about wasting time and money in our overburdened court system, especially if a law increases the likelihood they’ll have to pay hefty legal bills from the other side if they lose.

The fact is our legal system has too often been hijacked by individuals who see it as a judicial lottery system, who dream of huge, out-of-court settlements. We’re dismayed, too, by those attorneys who not only accept such threadbare cases but encourage them, suing on a contingency basis, getting rich on others’ misery and essentially throwing all sorts of allegations against the courtroom wall to see what sticks.

While we do understand the concerns voiced by critics of this legislation, we see this bill as remarkably restrained if not watered-down from what was first proposed. It would allow the prevailing defendant to recover costs of litigation in breach-of-contract suits or cases where judges opt to dismiss them. But it precludes either side from assuming the other’s legal bills if there’s a contractual attorneys’ fees agreement in place beforehand.

The law would require the Texas Supreme Court to come up with guidelines for our courts to be able to dismiss certain civil suits without merit. Such dismissals would not apply to class-action suits, suits involving tax or family codes or those concerning eminent domain.

Some critics focus on an odd provision in this bill that would require the plaintiff to pay the loser’s legal bills if the plaintiff turned down an initial settlement offer, then won less than 80 percent of that offer. This prompted one legislator to drolly suggest renaming the bill, “The Loser Pays and Sometimes the Winners Pay Act.”

We appreciate this stab at legislative humor, especially considering how much rancor this bill has caused the past few days. Nonetheless, this provision seeks only to get reasonable people to sit down and talk reasonable terms. Those who seek exorbitant awards in a game of jackpot justice may ultimately pay a stiff price — even if they win.