Legal Opinion

Smith v. Mahoney & Richards

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided November 3, 2016No. 642, 2015PublishedCited by 3 opinions

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

  1. Boddie v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Aaron Glenn Haygood v. Margarita Garza De EscabedoTexas Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Acuar v. LetourneauSupreme Court of Virginia · 2000
  4. General Motors Corp. v. New Castle CountySupreme Court of Delaware · 1997
  5. Mitchell v. HaldarSupreme Court of Delaware · 2005

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Walter Ansley v. Banner Health NetworkArizona Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Corrina Foraker v. Jennifer Rife and Dave RifeDelaware Court of Common Pleas · 2017
  3. Spine Care Delaware, LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,et al.Superior Court of Delaware · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API