Smith v. Mahoney & Richards
Supreme Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
SEITZ, Justice:
I. Introduction
The collateral source rule excludes from a jury’s consideration payments or compensation received by a tort plaintiff from a source independent of the wrongdoer. Even though the rule might result in the wrongdoer paying for expenses already paid to the plaintiff by a third party, the law has historically allowed the plaintiff a double recovery, reasoning that imposing maximum liability has a deterrent effect, and the wrongdoer should not benefit from the plaintiffs good fortune of having another source of compensation.
When a plaintiff claims medical expenses as…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Aaron Glenn Haygood v. Margarita Garza De EscabedoTexas Supreme Court · 2011
- Acuar v. LetourneauSupreme Court of Virginia · 2000
- General Motors Corp. v. New Castle CountySupreme Court of Delaware · 1997
- Mitchell v. HaldarSupreme Court of Delaware · 2005
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Walter Ansley v. Banner Health NetworkArizona Supreme Court · 2020
- Corrina Foraker v. Jennifer Rife and Dave RifeDelaware Court of Common Pleas · 2017
- Spine Care Delaware, LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,et al.Superior Court of Delaware · 2019