Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

The drafters of the Restatement (Second) of Torts recognized that there are four general categories of collateral benefits that should never be subtracted from the plaintiff's recovery.  This list is not absolute. The drafters also said about collateral sources, 'The law does not differentiate between the nature of the benefits, so long as they did not come from the defendant or a person acting for him.' Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920A, cmt. b Those four categories are:

(1) Insurance policies, whether maintained by the plaintiff or a third party.  Sometimes, as in fire insurance or collision automobile insurance, the insurance company is subrogated to the rights of the third party. This additional reason for keeping the tortfeasor's liability alive is not necessary, however, as the rule applies to insurance not involving subrogation, such as life or health policies. See also, Richard C. Maxwell, The Collateral Source Rule in the American Law of Damages, 46 Minn. L. Rev. 669, 672 (1962) ('Typically, the insurance cases make no distinction in relation to the type of insurance involved nor do they usually rest upon a stated conclusion that double recovery is avoided because the insurer is subrogated to ...

Register or login to access full content