Page:Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Anderson.pdf/1

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
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


  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.