Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hueper v. Goodrich

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided January 22, 1982No. 81-21Published

1DissentSimonett, Justice

The social and economic setting has changed substantially since the collateral source rule first appeared in the middle of the last century. Its continued extensive use today has been criticized by most neutral commentators. See, e.g., Sedler, The Collateral Source Rule and Personal Injury Damages: The Irrelevant Principle and the Functional Approach, 58 Kentucky L. J. 36 (1969); Note, Unreason in the Law of Damages: The Collateral Source Rule, 11 Harvard L.Rev. 741 (1964); Fleming, The Collateral Source Rule and Loss Allocation in Tort Law, 54 Calif.L.Rev. 1478 (1966). Dean Richard C.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Van Tassel v. Horace Mann Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
  2. Dahlin v. KronSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  3. Local 1140, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API