Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist

In Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, the Supreme Court explained the collateral source rule "embodies the venerable concept that a person who has invested years of insurance premiums to assure his medical care should receive the benefits of his thrift. The tortfeasor should not garner the benefits of his victim's providence." (Helfend, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp. 9-10.) The court observed "in the context of the entire American approach to the law of torts and damages, . . . the rule presently performs a number of legitimate and even indispensable functions." (Id. at p. 13.) Among those indispensable functions is the primary goal of fully compensating tort victims for their injuries. The Helfend court noted insurance policies frequently require subrogation or refund of insurance benefits after a tort recovery, so the plaintiff does not receive double recovery. (Helfend, supra, 2 Cal.3d at pp.10-11.) Additionally, "generally the jury is not informed that plaintiff's attorney will receive a large portion of the plaintiff's recovery in contingent fees . . . . Hence, the plaintiff rarely actually receives full compensation for his injuries as computed by the jury. The collateral source rule partially serves to compensate for the attorney's share and does not actually render 'double recovery' for the plaintiff." (Id. at p. 12.) Rather, the plaintiff's ability to recover his medical expenses from both the tortfeasor and his insurance plan "partially provides a somewhat closer approximation to full compensation for his injuries." (Id. at pp. 12-13.)