Helfend v S. Cal Rapid Transit District

Helfend v S. Cal Rapid Transit District - despite the Souza...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CASE: Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District 465 P.2d 61 (Cal. 1970) P188 torts Facts a. Plaintiff/Helfend Defendant/Transit b. plaintiff was injured in an auto-bus collision. c. (1) C/A: (2) relief requested: (3) defenses raised: Procedural History: a. Lower court’s ruling(s): in favor of plaintiff b. Damages awarded: c. Appellant: Transit, the court excluded evidence that a portion of plaintiff's medical bills were paid through a medical insurance plan requiring refund of the benefits from tort recoveries. Issues: a. substantive issue (i) Whether the plaintiff’s insurance coverage should lessen the amount of damages owed by the defendant? (ii) b. procedural issue: Disposition (judgment): Affirmed. Holding: The court affirmed, holding that the collateral source rule applied to suits against governmental entities
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: despite the Souza decision, since that decision, rendered in a contract setting, was distinguishable. Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: Collateral Source Rule The rule of damages that benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collateral to the wrongdoer will not diminish the damages otherwise recoverable. Reasoning: The defendant does not benefit from the insurance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not being awarded double recovery as the defense argues; the plaintiffs attorneys are paid from this as well. Evidence of plaintiff's insurance coverage was rightfully excluded where defendants could not show a proper relationship between the coverage and an issue in the case. Concurring/Dissenting Opinions: Additional Comments/Personal Impressions:...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online