Page:Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Anderson.pdf/6

566   defendant. In the Auto Transports case, the plaintiff requested damages of $200 for her medical bills. The evidence the plaintiff presented at trial indicated that she was only obligated to pay $28 in medical bills, and thus it was held that she could recover only that amount. The Auto Transports case is not helpful here, as the issue there had to do with the failure of proof by the plaintiff andnot application of the collateral-source rule.

[7] We recognize four situations in which the rule does not apply, as explained in Evans v. Wilson, 279 Ark. 224, 650 S.W.2d 569 (1983). They are cases in which a collateral source of recovery may be introduced (1) to rebut the plaintiffs testimony that heor she was compelled by financial necessity to return to work prematurely or to forego additional medical care; (2) to show that the plaintiff had attributed his condition to some other cause, such as sickness; (3) to impeach the plaintiff's testimony that he or she had paid his medical expenses himself; (4) to show that the plaintiff had actually continued to work instead of being out of work, as claimed. Id. at 226, 650 S.W.2d at 570. See also H W. B, A L D § 9-4 (3d ed. 1994). This Court has also allowed evidence of collateral sources when the plaintiff opens the door to his or her financial condition. See Babbitt v. Quik-way Lube & Tire, Inc., 313 Ark. 207, 853 S.W.2d 273 (1993); Younts v. Baldor Electric Co., 310 Ark. 86, 832 S.W.2d 832 (1992). The Trial Court ruled that none of the exceptions appliedto the facts at hand, and an examination of the abstract indicates that ruling was correct. There is no testimony by the plaintiff that arguably invokes any of the exceptions. [8] The R (S) T § 920A(2) provides guidance on this issue and explains that the general rule is that "[p]ayments made to or benefits conferred on the injured party from other sources are not credited against the tortfeasor's liability, although they cover all or a part of the harm for whichthe tortfeasor is liable." Comment b to that Restatement section explains that, if the plaintiff is responsible for the benefit received,the law allows the plaintiff to keep it. Further, if the benefit was agift to the plaintiff from a third party or established for the plaintiff by law, the plaintiff should not be deprived of the advantage that it confers. Another way to state the rule is to say that "it is the