## Facts

- Julius J. Helfend, age 67, drove east on Third Street in Los Angeles and stopped to allow another driver to back into a parking space.
- Helfend signaled his stop with his left arm extended outside the vehicle.
- A bus operated by Kenneth A. Mitchell for the Southern California Rapid Transit District pulled out from a curb stop, moved into a lane nearer the center to pass, and sideswiped Helfend’s car.
- The bus struck and crushed Helfend’s arm, knocking off the car’s rear-view mirror.
- Helfend received emergency treatment, was hospitalized for about a week, and underwent roughly six months of physical therapy, with some permanent discomfort but no permanent disability.
- Helfend sought damages including medical expenses and costs to hire help for property maintenance he could no longer perform.
- Part of Helfend’s medical expenses was paid by medical insurance that required reimbursement from any tort recovery.

## Issues

1. In a tort action against a public entity and its employee, does the collateral source rule apply to exclude evidence that the plaintiff’s medical bills were paid in part by medical insurance?
2. Does the result change when the insurance plan requires the plaintiff to reimburse benefits from any tort recovery?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the plaintiff’s judgment for $16,400.
- The court held the collateral source rule applies to public entities and public employees as it does to private defendants.
- The trial court properly excluded evidence of insurance payments for medical expenses, including payments subject to reimbursement from the plaintiff’s recovery.

## Legal Principles

- Under the collateral source rule, payments to an injured plaintiff from a source independent of the tortfeasor do not reduce the damages recoverable from the tortfeasor.
- The rule applies in tort actions against governmental defendants; governmental status does not justify reducing liability based on a plaintiff’s independent insurance.
- A plaintiff’s purchase of insurance should not operate as a partial release of the wrongdoer’s liability.
- Reimbursement or subrogation rights in insurance arrangements often prevent actual double recovery, and their existence supports leaving damages unreduced.
- Evidence of collateral payments may be excluded because it risks jury misuse and unfair prejudice by prompting improper damage reductions unrelated to the defendant’s liability.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a tort damages award against a public transit district and its driver, ruling that the collateral source rule bars defendants from introducing evidence of the plaintiff’s insurance payments to reduce damages, even when the insurance benefits must be repaid from any recovery.


Helfend v. S. Cal. Rapid Transit Dist., 2 Cal. 3d 1 (Cal. 1970)