Garfield v. Russell
| Decision Date | 23 May 1967 |
| Citation | 251 Cal.App.2d 275,59 Cal.Rptr. 379 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Pearl GARFIELD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Nancy RUSSELL, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 29541. |
Hall, Plotkin & Norkin and Allan D. Norkin, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Gilbert, Thompson & Kelly and Jean Wunderlich, Los Angeles, for respondent.
The plaintiff in this personal injury action appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant which followed an adverse verdict by a jury.
On August 3, 1962 there was a collision between vehicles operated by the respective parties at the intersection of Burton Way and Foothill in Beverly Hills. The intersection was controlled by signals. Each party claimed at the trial that she entered on the green light. Other things being equal one would think that plaintiff had the better on the issue of liability, since she produced a police officer who testified that after the accident the defendant admitted to him that she had entered on the red light.
It appears that plaintiff had three different insurance policies which to some extent paid for her medical expenses. The exact amount of reimbursement she received from these collateral sources is not clear from the record before us, but it is a fair inference that at the very least some of her visits to her doctor did not cost her very much and that she perhaps even made a slight profit.
Defendant at no time claimed that she was entitled to have any reimbursement received by the plaintiff deducted from the total amount of damages the jury might award. The law on that point was too clear to make it worth anybody's time to argue to the contrary. (Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Starley, 28 Cal.2d 347, 170 P.2d 448, 166 A.L.R. 198 and cases cited therein; for a criticism of the rule see Fleming, The Collateral Source Rule and Loss Allocation in Tort Law, 54 Cal.L.Rev., p. 1478.) Defendant did contend, however, that the evidence was relevant on the issue of plaintiff's 'motive' in seeking medical aid. (Cf. McDaniel Daniel v. Dowell, 210 Cal.App.2d 26, 34--35, 26 Cal.Rptr. 140.) Plaintiff contended that such evidence of compensation from a collateral source is so prejudicial that it had to be excluded, even though logically relevant on a substantive issue or on the question of her credibility.
Plaintiff's attorney brought up the problem in chambers just before he concluded his client's direct examination. The court said it would take the matter under advisement and requested defendant's attorney to defer going to plaintiff's insurance policies for the time being. He agreed, but before the court had advised counsel what its ruling would be, on cross examination of plaintiff she was asked: 1. whether it was true that two months after the accident her own company had sent her to a certain doctor who had told her that there was nothing wrong with her as a result of this accident; and 2. whether her own insurance company had not stopped paying her medical bills. An objection was first overruled, but eventually, after a nonresponsive answer, sustained on the ground of irrelevancy. Immediately thereafter defense counsel asked her point blank whether it was not true that she actually had three different policies paying her bills. Again an objection was sustained. Defense counsel then made an offer of proof at the bench. Again plaintiff's objection was sustained. Yet immediately upon resuming testimony defense counsel launched into a series of questions which, over repeated unsuccessful objections, developed the following matters:
1. That somebody representing one of plaintiff's insurance companies had written her a letter in which the reasonableness of her doctor's charges and those of her hospital were questioned.
2. That plaintiff never discussed her doctor's charges with him after she received the letter; and
3. A denial by plaintiff that the reason why there was no such discussion was that she was not paying the bill.
Then there came a direct question concerning the terms of one of her policies. There was another objection and a long argument in chambers. The court finally ruled as follows: 'You have a right to show that The doctor was motivated by the existence of medical pay and hospitalizing and the amount of his charges But not this particular person. * * *' 1 (Emphasis added.)
We think that the rulings of the court were, to say the least, inconsistent and were, in part, demonstrably wrong. No plausible reason appears why it is anything but inadmissible hearsay what a representative of one of plaintiff's carriers told her concerning the reasonableness of hospital charges. The question concerning what the company's doctor told plaintiff should never even have been asked. There is no 'duty' on the part of an insured to engage in arguments with a doctor appointed by the company.
Plaintiff's counsel protected his record as well as he could under the circumstances, nor does defendant claim that he failed to do so. The question of plaintiff's policies was brought to the attention of the trial court at the proper time.
If counsel was correct in his contention that the evidence concerning plaintiff's three policies was prejudicial, it was obviously desirable that a ruling be obtained before the policies were mentioned to the jury, even if only in the form of questions. This ruling he sought in chambers. The court asked for time to consider the problem, defense counsel agreed to defer going into the matter until there was a ruling, but by the time it came he had filled the air with questions, some of which plaintiff was ordered to answer, which made it wholly immaterial what the court eventually ruled. Plaintiff did not have the kind of trial to which she was entitled.
Although the challenged evidence all went to the issue of damages, what did get into the record strongly suggested that plaintiff was a grasping woman who was building up a lawsuit. It affected her credibility...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc.
...but not absolute, discretion. (Burke v. Almaden Vineyards (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 768, 774, 150 Cal.Rptr. 419; Garfield v. Russell (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 275, 279, 59 Cal.Rptr. 379.) In reviewing the trial court's exercise of that broad discretion, an appellate court is not authorized to substi......
-
Werner v. Lane
...who were building up a law suit. The credibility of the plaintiff was seriously impaired by reason thereof. See Garfield v. Russell, 251 Cal.App.2d 275, 59 Cal.Rptr. 379 (1967); Phelan v. Santelli, 30 Ill.App.3d 657, 334 N.E.2d 391 We are convinced that the plaintiff was not given that fair......
-
Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist.
...normal jury verdict. (See Hoffman v. Brandt (1966) 65 Cal.2d 549, 554--555, 55 Cal.Rptr. 417, 421 P.2d 425; Garfield v. Russell (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 275, 279, 59 Cal.Rptr. 379.) We also note that generally the jury is not informed that plaintiff's attorney will receive a large portion of t......
-
People v. Romero
...section 352, Evidence Code, 5 to exclude 'any relevant evidence' (§§ 350, 351, Evid.Code) 'otherwise admissible' (Garfield v. Russell, 251 Cal.App.2d 275, 279, 59 Cal.Rptr. 379), the probative value of which is outweighed by the probability that its admission will create substantial danger ......