Lange v. Missouri Pacific R. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2461,82-2461 |
| Citation | 703 F.2d 322 |
| Parties | 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1490 George LANGE, Appellant, v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Herschel H. Friday, Elizabeth J. Robben, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Charles L. Honey, Prescott, Ark., for appellant.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal by plaintiff George Lange from the district court's 1 judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of the defendant Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (Mo Pac). On appeal, Lange contends that the district court erred in permitting him to be cross-examined on payments he received from a collateral source. We affirm.
This is a diversity case arising out of a back injury Lange sustained during the course of his employment in Emmet, Arkansas. The accident occurred while Lange was opening a railroad car owned by Mo Pac. Lange brought this negligence action against Mo Pac alleging failure to maintain the railroad car in a reasonably safe condition.
On direct examination by his attorney Lange testified that he returned to work immediately after undergoing surgery for the back injury because he had to support his family and had no savings or disability income to fall back upon. The defense counsel objected to this testimony, but the trial court ruled that it was permissible to show why the plaintiff returned to work so quickly. Prior to cross-examination of Lange defense counsel obtained a ruling from the trial court that the availability of disability benefits could be shown on cross-examination. Thereafter, defense counsel elicited testimony from Lange showing that he applied for workmen's compensation benefits several months after the surgery and received a lump sum payment retroactive to the date of the surgery in May, 1981 at the rate of $140.00 per week.
Ordinarily payments received from collateral sources are not allowed to be introduced into evidence. Hannah v. Haskins, 612 F.2d 373, 375 (8th Cir.1980). However, when the plaintiff makes specific reference to collateral source payments on direct examination, the scope of permissible inquiry is set by the direct examination and the usual rules on cross-examination apply. 612 F.2d at 375. "Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness." Fed.R.Evid. 611(b). The permissible scope of cross-examination rests in the trial court's discretion. 612 F.2d at 376.
The Arkansas Supreme Court has also approved the introduction of evidence on collateral source payments when it is relevant to some issue in the case. The payments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corsetti v. Stone Co.
...162 (1968) (plaintiff testified he returned to work because he had fallen behind in the payment of his bills); Lange v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 703 F.2d 322 (8th Cir.1983) (plaintiff asserted he had to return to work immediately after surgery because he had no disability income); York v. Young,......
-
Laird v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co.
...receipt of disability pension payments thus entitling defendant to cross-examine on the subject. Defendant cites Lange v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co. (8th Cir.1983), 703 F.2d 322, and Gladden v. P. Henderson & Co. (3rd Cir.1967), 385 F.2d 480, in support of this proposition. Defendant claims ......
-
Clausen v. Sea-3, Inc.
...benefits for the limited purpose of proving the plaintiff's motivation in declining an employment opportunity); Lange v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 703 F.2d 322, 324 (8th Cir.1983) (finding that "evidence concerning [the plaintiff's] receipt of workers' compensation benefits was relevant to te......
-
Haischer v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
...regarding financial distress." Leake v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 892 S.W.2d 359, 363 (Mo.App. 1995); also Lange v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 703 F.2d 322, 324 (8th Cir.1983). We agree that use of such evidence for that limited purpose is proper. The question then becomes whether Haischer, thro......
-
Cruz v. Groth: the exceptional collateral source rule remains exception-free in South Dakota.
...1990); Tipton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 375 U.S. 34, 35-36 (1963). (75.) See Eichel, 375 U.S. at 255. (76.) See Lange v. Pac. R.R. Co., 703 F.2d 322, 324 (8th Cir. 1983) (applying the same rationale, the Eighth Circuit has held that collateral source evidence is admissible on cross-examinati......