Tort Litigation Reform Act of 1987

Tort Litigation Reform Act of 1987 - Sets forth uniform national standards regarding liability in tort actions. Preempts and supersedes inconsistent Federal and State laws. Provides that all claims which are subject to the provisions of this Act shall be governed by the principles of comparative responsibility, unless: (1) a person's proportionate responsibility exceeds 50 percent (where such person shall be held jointly and severally liable); or (2) persons acting in concert caused the injury or damage. Sets forth basic standards of liability for product manufacturers and product sellers. Subjects a product manufacturer to liability for a claimant's harm which was proximately caused by a product which was unreasonably unsafe: (1) in construction; (2) in design; (3) because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided; or (4) because it did not conform to a product manufacturer's express warranty. Establishes a presumption of reasonable care where the product conformed with standards or specifications established or adopted by the Federal Government. Relieves a product manufacturer of liability for harm allegedly caused by a product if: (1) knowledge of the unsafe aspect of the product was not technologically or practically feasible; (2) the ability to eliminate the unsafe aspect of the product was not technologically or practically feasible; (3) an unreasonable or unforeseeable use or alteration of the product occurred after it left the manufacturer's control; or (4) the unsafe aspect of the product that caused the claimant's harm was an inherent aspect of the product or necessary to the product's utility. Subjects a product seller to liability for a claimant's harm where: (1) the seller's failure to exercise reasonable care with respect to the product was a proximate cause of the harm; or (2) the product failed to conform to an express warranty made by the seller and such failure was the proximate cause of the harm. Subjects a product seller to liability for a claimant's harm based upon an alleged failure to provide adequate warnings where: (1) the seller failed to provide warnings or instructions received while the product was in the seller's possession and control; or (2) the seller failed to make reasonable efforts to provide users with warnings and instructions received after the product left the seller's control. Treats the product seller as the manufacturer where: (1) the manufacturer is not subject to service of process under State law; or (2) the court determines that the claimant would be unable to enforce a judgment against the manufacturer. Subjects an attorney to court-imposed sanctions for: (1) engaging in conduct intended to delay the proceedings; (2) initiating an action without a good faith belief that a reasonable basis in law and in fact existed for recovery; or (3) denying the substantive averments of a complaint without a good faith belief that there was a reasonable basis in law and in fact for avoidance of liability. Requires that damage awards be reduced by any amount received as workers' compensation benefits. Allows punitive damages to be awarded if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm suffered was the result of conduct manifesting a malicious and flagrant disregard for safety. Requires the bench to determine the amount, if any, of punitive damages. Requires the attorneys to advise each party of the existence and availability of alternative dispute resolution options and to file notice with the court certifying that the clients were so advised.