Ark.]
561
MONTGOMERY WARD & CO., Inc. v. G.W. ANDERSON and Shirley Anderson
97-1456
976 S.W.2d 382
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered October 22, 1998
- NEW TRIAL—GRANT OR DENIAL—TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION.—The decision to grant or deny a new trial under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(8) is within the discretion of the trial court and is not reversed absent a manifest abuse of discretion, that is, discretion exercised thoughtlessly and without due consideration.
- EVIDENCE—ADMISSION OR EXCLUSION—TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION.—A trial court's ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence will not be reversed absent abuse of discretion.
- DAMAGES—COLLATERAL-SOURCE RULE—RELEVANCE EXCEPTION.—The collateral-source rule applies unless the evidence of the benefits from the collateral source is relevant for a purpose other than the mitigation of damages.
- DAMAGES—COLLATERAL-SOURCE RULE—OPERATION OF.—Under the collateral-source rule, a trial court must exclude evidence of payments received by an injured party from sources collateral to the wrongdoer, such as private insurance or government benefits; recoveries from collateral sources do not redound to the benefit of a tortfeasor, even though double recovery for the same damage by the injured party may result.
- DAMAGES—COLLATERAL-SOURCE RULE—RATIONALE.—The rationale of the collateral-source rule is that a claimant should benefit from a collateral-source recovery rather than the tortfeasor because the claimant has usually paid an insurance premium or lost sick leave, whereas the tortfeasor would receive a total windfall.
- DAMAGES—COLLATERAL-SOURCE RULE—DISCOUNTED AND GRATUITOUS MEDICAL SERVICES INCLUDED—RATIONALE FAVORED APPELLEE.—The policy supporting the collateral-source rule and Arkansas case law favor including discounted and gratuitous medical services within the shelter of the collateral-source rule; where there was no evidence that appellant had anything to do with procuring the discount of appellee's medical-services bill, the rationale of the rule favored appellee.