Lexplug logoLexplug

Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District

Supreme Court of California
465 P.2d 61, 2 Cal. 3d 1 (1970)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The collateral source rule, which provides that compensation received by an injured party from a source wholly independent of the tortfeasor should not be deducted from the damages the tortfeasor must pay, applies to tort actions against public entities and their employees.


Facts:

  • Julius J. Helfend was driving his car in Los Angeles when he stopped to allow another car to back into a parking space.
  • Helfend put his left arm out of the car window to signal his stop to traffic behind him.
  • A bus owned by the Southern California Rapid Transit District and driven by its employee, Kenneth A. Mitchell, attempted to pass Helfend's stopped vehicle.
  • The right rear of the bus sideswiped Helfend's car, crushing his extended arm.
  • Helfend sustained significant injuries requiring hospitalization and ongoing physical therapy, resulting in medical bills.
  • A portion of Helfend's hospital bill was paid by his Blue Cross medical insurance, a plan for which he had paid premiums.
  • Helfend's Blue Cross insurance plan required him to refund any benefits received if he recovered damages for the same injuries from a third party.

Procedural Posture:

  • Julius J. Helfend filed a tort action against the Southern California Rapid Transit District and its employee, Kenneth A. Mitchell, in the Los Angeles Superior Court (a trial court).
  • During the trial, the defendants sought to introduce evidence that Helfend's medical bills had been partially paid by his Blue Cross insurance.
  • The trial court ruled that the collateral source rule applied and excluded the evidence.
  • A jury returned a verdict for Helfend in the amount of $16,400, and the court entered a judgment on that verdict.
  • The defendants, Southern California Rapid Transit District and Mitchell, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the collateral source rule apply in a tort action against a public entity to bar the introduction of evidence that a portion of the plaintiff's medical expenses was paid by the plaintiff's own medical insurance provider?


Opinions:

Majority - Tobriner, Acting C. J.

Yes. The collateral source rule applies in a tort action against a public entity and bars evidence that the plaintiff's medical bills were paid by an independent source like their own insurance. The court reaffirmed the collateral source rule, which holds that a tortfeasor may not benefit from compensation the victim receives from a source wholly independent of the wrongdoer. The court distinguished its prior decision in City of Salinas v. Souza & McCue Constr. Co., limiting that case's characterization of the rule as 'punitive' to its specific contractual setting where the collateral source was not truly independent. Here, the source was independent because Helfend had paid premiums for his insurance. The court advanced several justifications for the rule in tort cases: it prevents the tortfeasor from benefiting from the victim's foresight, encourages the purchase of insurance, and in cases with subrogation or refund provisions, it correctly allocates the ultimate cost to the wrongdoer without providing a 'double recovery.' The court explicitly held that the rule applies to public entities, finding no justification for creating a special exception that would arbitrarily discriminate against victims injured by government actors.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the collateral source rule in California tort law and prevents its erosion in negligence cases involving public entities. By narrowly construing its earlier holding in Souza, the court clarified that the rule is not merely punitive but serves important compensatory and policy functions. The ruling ensures that government entities are treated like any other tortfeasor concerning liability for damages, preventing them from shifting the costs of their negligence to a victim's insurer. This precedent reinforces the principle that the party at fault should bear the ultimate financial responsibility for the harm caused.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1970)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"