I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 0 2 5 6 - S CT R O B I N S O N P R O P ER T Y GR O U P , L .P., A M ISS ISS IP P I L IM IT ED P A R T N ER S H IPd /b /a HO RS ES HO E CAS

I NO AND HO TEL
v. M ARY S. M I TCH ELL D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 14/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. CH AR LES E . W EBSTER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: TUNI CA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: J OEANNA CHAND LE Y CRAW F ORD ROBER T L EW I S M OORE DAW N DAVI S CA RS ON ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: RO BERT Q . W HI TW ELL NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 23/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. M ary S. M i t chel l f i l ed a per sonal- i njur y suitagainstR ob i nson P roperty G roup (“ R o b in so n P ro p e rty ” ), a M iss iss ip p i L im ited P a rtn e rsh ip , ste m m in g fro m a trip -a n d -fa ll
acc i dentatthe H or s es hoe C as i no i n R obi ns onvi l l e, M i s s i s s i ppi . A j ury det erm i ned the val ue of M i t chel l ’ s damages at$80, 000, butdeemed herthi r ty per centatfaul t . T hus , f i nal j ud gm ent w as ent ered i n h er f avo r f or $56 , 00 0. F i nd i ng no err or, this C ou rtaff i rm s.

### 2 FACTS ¶2. O n M arch 29 , 2 0 0 6 , M i t chell , a seven t y-t w o-year- old r esi den tof M em ph i s, T ennes s ee, and a gr oup of herf r i ends vi s i t ed the H or s es hoe C as i no i n R obi ns onvi l l e, M i s s i s s i ppi . A f

t erpl ayi ng the s l otm achi nes , M i t chel l w al ked over t o t he snac k barand
or der ed a s andw i ch. W hi l e aw ai t i ng heror der , M i t chel l de ci ded t o pl ay herone r emai ni ng “f i f ty- centcoupon” on a nearby s l otm achi ne. A s M i t chel l appr oache d the machi ne, the hee l
o f h e r sh o e c a u g h t o n a m e tal p late , c a u sin g h e r to fa ll. T h is m e tal p late h a d a tw o -in c h lip
an d form ed the b ase for a tt ac h ing a slo t- m ac h ine s ea t t o the floo r. ¶3. T he part i es di s put e w hether the ar ea i n w hi ch the acc i dent occurr ed w as barr i cade d. M i t chel l s t at ed thats ever al ai s l es w er e r oped of f , buts he di d notsee any bar r i cade s ar ound this part i culararea. A com pan i on , B et t i e Jol l y, t est i fi ed t hat she di d no ts ee any barr i cades. B oth w om en, how ever , di d not i ce thatthe s eat s i n thi s ar ea w er e i n s om e di s arr ay. R obi ns on Pr operty i ns i s t ed thatthe ar ea ha d been r oped of f , a nd thatM i t chel l had f ai l ed t o not i ce, or had bl at ant l y i gnor ed, the barr i cade . ¶ 4 . M itch e ll w a s tra n sp o rte d to th e e m e rg e n c y ro o m a t B a p tist M e m o ria l H o sp ital-D e S o to i n S o u th a v e n , M i s s i s s i p p i , a n d th e n tr a n s f e rr e d t o M e t h o d i s tL e Bo n h e u rGe r ma n t o wn H o sp ital in G e rm a n to w n , T e n n e ss e e . S h e s u ffe re d a b ro k e n a n k le a n d u n d e rw e n t o rth o p e d ic
su rge ry se v era l day s lat er. ¶5 . M i t chel l e xp e r i e nc e d a dd i t i on a l c ompl i c a t i on s f r om the i nj ury. W hi l e ho s pi t a l i z ed f o l l o wi n g h e rs u r g e r y , M i t c h e l l c o n tr a c t e d a s t a p h i n f e c t i o n i n o n e e y e a n d o n e a r m. T h e re a fte r, sh e w a s c o n fin e d to a w h e e lch a ir fo r n e a rly six w e e k s. S h e d e sc rib e d th e p a in
as unbear abl e. M i t chel l t es t i f i ed thats he al s o ha d di f f i cul ty br eathi ng and cons ul t ed both a

### At

p os t - tri a lm oti onh e ari ng s , M i t c he l l ’ s c ouns e le xp l a i ne d that h i s o f fi ce had 1 

### fl ooded j ust

pri or t o tria l, and in his has teto obt ain repl ac em ent copi es of Mi tc hel l’ s m edi ca l bil ls , heina dverte ntly inc lude d theentire bi llfrom t he Sutherland Clinic . 3 l ung s peci al i s tand a he arts peci al i s tf ortr eatm ent . A ddi t i onal l y, she r ece i ved ps ychol ogi cal tr eatm entf

ordepr es s i on. M i t chel l al s o t es t i f i ed thats he m i s s ed a s ubs t ant i al per i od of w or k, and thatw hen she re turned t o w or k, herhours ata l ocal gi f tshop w er e r educe d fr om ei ght h o u rs a d a y , thr e e d a y s a w e e k , to f o u r h o u rs a d a y , thr e e d a y s a w e e k , d u e to h e r in a b ili ty t o s t and f

orpr ol onged per i ods of t i m e. ¶6. M i t chel l f

i l ed s ui t agai ns t R obi ns on Pr operty i n the C i r cui t C our t of T uni ca Count y, M i s s i s s i ppi , w hi ch cul m i nat ed i n a j ury ver di cti n herf avor . C ont es t ed i ssues att r i al in c lu d e d , in tera lia , w h ethe r th e a rea w as b arricad ed an d the a cc u rac y o f M it ch ell ’s purpor t ed medi cal expens es . R ather t han submi t t i ng s epar at e bi l l s and r ecor ds as s oci at ed
w i th herm edi cal expens es , M i t chel l of f er ed a s um m ary as evi dence, ther eby exc l udi ng d o c u me n t s wh i c h r e v e a l e d M e d i c a r e p a y me n t s . At t a c h e d t o th e s u mma ry wa s s o me su p p o rtin g d o c u m e n tatio n . O n c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , R o b in so n P ro p e rty c o n fro n ted M itch e ll regar ding dis crepancies betw een the sum m ary and the att ached bil l s. R ob i nson P roperty als o poi nt ed outt hats om e of t he bi l l s fai l ed t o r ef

l ectthe amounts how n i n the s um m ary. R obi ns on Pr operty cont es t ed w hetheratt ache d bi l l s f ortr eatm entof

a ur i nary- tr acti nf

ect i on, chol es t er ol chec k, r out i ne bl ood w or k, and a $10, 198 bi l l f r om the Suther l and C l i ni c w hi ch dat ed bac k t o J une 18, 1996, w er e r el at ed t o t he 2006 fa l l . M i t chel l t es t i f i ed thats he di d not know how t he i ncl us i on of the Sut her l and C l i ni c bi l l had occ urr ed, as s he had nots een the
s um m ary pr i ort o t aki ng t he w i tnes s s t and. M i t chel l t es t i f i ed s om eone ha d m ade a m i s t ake 1

### 4

t o i ncl ude the ent i r e bil l , butthats he had i ncurr ed s om e medi cal expens es atSut her l and C l i nic a t tr i but abl e t o the 2006 f al l . O n r edi r ect , i tw as es t abl i s hed thatM i t chel l ’ s couns el had pr epar ed the s um m ary, and M i t chel l t es t i f i ed thatany expe ns e i ncurr ed atthe Suther l and C l i nic bef

ore her f all sh o u ld b e t aken off her cl ai m . M i t chell soug ht s pecial dam ages, i ncl udi ng l os tw ages , of $43, 383. ¶7 . A f

t erhear i ng al l t he evi dence , t he j ur y e s t a bl i s he d M i t c he l l ’ s t ot a l da m ages at $80, 000 and dee m ed herthi r ty pe r centa tf aul t . A ccor di ngl y, the ci r cui tcourtent er ed a f i nal j udgm enti n the amountof $5 6, 00 0. M i t chel l then f i l ed a mot i on f

oraddi tur , w hi ch the
c irc u it co u rt d e n ied . R o b in so n P ro p e rty fil e d a m o tio n fo r n e w trial, a ss e rtin g th a t th e c irc u it
courthad err ed i n denyi ng i t s m ot i on f ordi r ect ed ver di ctand i n ref usi ng to al l ow i m peac hm entof

M i t chel l r egar di ng heras s ert i on of f i nanci al devast at i on, r el yi ng on evi dence i tpr of

f er ed dur i ng t r i al thata l ar ge port i on of he rm edi cal expens es w er e pai d by i ns ur ance . A f

t era pos t - tr i al hear i ng, the ci r cui tj udge ent er ed an or derdenyi ng R obi ns on P ro p e rty ’s m o tio n fo r n e w trial. ¶8 . R obi ns on Pr op e r ty no w a pp e a l s t o thi s Cour t , r a i s i ng the f ol l owi ng a s s i gnment s of
err or : ( 1) w hetherthe ci r cui tcourte rr ed i n r ef us i ng t o r ecogni ze a n i m peac hm entexce pt i on t o the col l at er al
- s our ce rul e, and ( 2) w hetherthe ci r cui tcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n f ai l i ng to g ra n t R o b in so n P ro p e rty ’s m o tio n fo r n e w trial.

### 5 DI S CU S S I ON I . W het her t he c i rcui t c ourt e rre d i n re f usi ng t o reco gn i z e an i m peachm ent exce pt i on t o t he col l at eral - s ource r ul e. ¶9. T hi s C our tr evi ew s a tr i al j udge’ s de ci s i on t o a dm i torde ny e vi dence underan abus eo f- d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd . See W hitten v. Cox , 799 So. 2d 1, 13 ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng Floyd
v. Cit y of Cr ys tal Springs , 749 So. 2d 11 0, 1 13 (M i s s . 1999) ) . I f an err ori nvol ves the
a d m iss io n o r e x c lu sio n o f e v id e n c e , this C o u rt “ ‘w ill n o t re v e rse u n les s th e e rro r a d v e rse ly af f ect s a s ubs t ant i al r i ghtof a party. ’ ” Id . ¶10. D ur i ng the di r ectexami nat i on of M i t chel l , the f

ol l ow i ng excha nge occ urr ed: [ M i t chel l ’ s a t t orney] : Y ou ha ve t ol d the j ury w hatexpens es you have i ncurr ed. W h a t ar e y o u a sk in g th e ju ry to g iv e y o u in th e w a y o f c o m p e n sa tio n to compensa t e you f

orthi s i nj ury? [M itch e ll] : W e ll, I ju st w a n t th e ju ry to d e ter m in e th a t, ex c e p t I w o u ld lik e to have the medi cal bi l l s and m y expens es , and, of cour s e, t hat ' s r eal l y j us tpart i al expens es . I coul dn' teven thi nk of everythi ng thatI have s pentand t he gas and the cos tof

everythi ng, the goi ng back and f or th t o phys i cal ther apy and a l l of th a t, bu t I th in k th e ju ry w o u ld b e fa ir in a w a rd in g w h a tev e r th e y fe e l w o u ld be ri gh tforsom et hing as ser i ou s as this . [ M i t chel l ’ s att orney] : D o you thi nk tha toughtt o be a s ubs t ant i al s um of m oney, m or e than the $50, 000 m edi cal expens es you have? [M itc h e ll]: W e ll, I w o u ld h o p e s o . I h a d to -- I b o r r o w e d

m o n e y to liv e o n . I re fin a n c e dmy h o u s e . I kn o w th a t's p ro b a b ly n o t a p ro b lem I'm su p p o se d to br i ng up, buti thas - - i t ' s devas tat ed m e f

i nanci al l y, t oo . (Em ph asi s added ). A dd i t i on al l y, the fol l ow i ng exch ang e add res sed M i t chell ’s l ostw ages: [M it ch ell ’s att o rne y ] : A s a re su lto f th is, d id y o u lose so m e ti m e fro m w o rk w hi l e you w er e of

f w i th al l of

thi s s ur gery and s o f

or th? [ M i t chel l ] : O h, yes . I di dn’ tw or k agai n unt i l – s ever al m onths ago, I s t art ed b a c k p a rt-tim e . . . . I w o rk fo u r h o u rs th re e d a y s a w e e k , a n d th a t’s a b o u t all I c a n s ta n d o n th is a n k le s till, a n d it’ s b e e n a y e a r a n d a h a lf . . . .

### 6

[ M i t c h e l l ’ s a t t o r n e y ] : Ar e y o u a b l e t o wo r k a f u l l e i g h t - h o u rd a y n o w? [M itch e ll] : N o , n o t y e t. ¶ 1 1 . R o b in so n P ro p e rty a rg u e s th a t itso u g h t to in tro d u c e e v id e n c e th a t th e m e d ica l b ill s i ncurr ed by M i t chel l w er e s ubs t ant i al l y pai d by i ns ur ance f orthe purpos e of

i m peac hi ng her tes tim o n y , n o t to m iti g a te o r r e d u c e h e r d a m a g e s. R o b in so n P ro p e rty c o n ten d s th a t B usick
v. St . Jo hn , 856 So. 2d 304 ( M i s s . 2003) , and G es ke v. W il liam s on , 945 So . 2d 42 9 (M i ss. C t . A pp. 2006) , both r ecogni zed a n i m peac hm ente xcept i on t o the col l at er al
- s our ce rul e. T he ci r cui tj udge, how ever , deni ed R obi ns on Pr operty’ s r eques t , r el yi ng upon McCar y v. Caper ton , 601 So. 2d 866 ( M i s s . 1992) , and hel d t hatt her e w as no i m peac hm entexce pt i on t o the col l at er al
- s our ce rul e. ¶1 2. I thas l ong been es t abl i s he d i n o urs t a t e tha t , un de rthe c ol l a t e r a l
- s ou r c e rul e, “a def endantt or t f

eas ori s notent i t l ed t o have dam ages forw hi ch he i s l i abl e r educe d by r eas on o f th e fa c t th a t th e p lain tiff ha s re c e iv e d co m p e n sa tio n fo r h is in ju ry b y a n d th ro u g h a to tally i ndepende ntsour ce, sepa r at e and apartf r om the def

endantt or t f

eas or . ” Cen t

. B an k o f M iss. v. B u tler , 5 17 So . 2 d 50 7, 5 11
- 12 ( M i s s . 1 98 7) ( c i t a t i on s o mi t t e d) . Com pe ns at i on or i ndemni ty r ece i ved by the pl ai nt i f f f r om a col l at er al s our ce s uch as i ns ur ance : c a n n o t b e s e t u p b y th e [d e fe n d a n t] i n m i t igat i on orr educt i on of dam ages . .

. . T h e w ro n g d o e r is n o t en tit led to h a v e th e d a m a g e s to w h ic h h e is lia b le r educe d by provi ng t hatpl ai nt i f f has r ece i ved orw i l l r ece i ve compens at i on or i n d e mn i ty f

o rth e l o s s f

r o m a c o l l a t e r a l s o u r c e , wh o l l y i n d e p e n d e n to f h i m. U nderthi s gener al rul e, i ns ur ance i n behal f of the i nj ur ed per s on cannotbe s et u p the w ron g d o er i n m i t iga t i on of the loss .

### 7

Cokerv. Fi ve- T

w o T axiSer v. , 211 M i s s . 820, 826, 52 So. 2d 356, 357 ( 1951) ( quot i ng 25 C .J .S . D a m a g e s , § 9 9 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). See a l so B u rr v. Miss. B ap tist Med. Ctr. , 909 So. 2 d 7 2 1 , 7 2 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). ¶1 3. Pr i or t o B usi ck , t hi s Courth a d no tr e c og ni z e d a n i mpea c hmen te xcept i on t o t he
c o lla te ra l- s o u rc e d o c tr in e . See B usick , 8 5 6 S o . 2 d a t 3 0 9 (c itin g , e. g. , McCol lum v. Fra n k lin , 6 0 8 S o . 2 d 6 9 2 , 6 9 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 ); Eaton v. G il liland , 537 So . 2d 40 5, 40 8 (M i ss. 1 9 8 9 ); Cen t

. B an k o f M iss. , 5 1 7 S o . 2 d at 5 1 1 ; StarChevr olet Co. v. G r een by G r een , 473 S o . 2 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 5 ); P r ef er r ed R is k Mut

. I ns. Co. v. Court

ney , 393 So. 2d 1328, 1332- 33 ( M i s s . 1981) ) . I n B usick , thi s C our tnot ed thats ever al st at es have r ecogni zed a lim ite d im p e a c h m e n t e x c e p tio n to th e c o lla te ra l- s o u rc e ru le . See B usick , 856 So. 2d at309- 1 0 (c it in g , e. g. , W

arren v. B all

ard , 2 6 6 G a . 4 0 8 , 4 6 7 S .E .2 d 8 9 1 , 8 9 3 (1 9 9 6 ); Cors ettiv. Stone Co. , 3 9 6 M a ss . 1 , 4 8 3 N .E .2 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 1 (1 9 8 5 ); E vans v. W il s on , 279 A r k. 224, 650 S .W .2 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 0 (1 9 8 3 ); H ack v. State Far m Mut

. A uto. I ns. Co. , 37 W i s . 2d 1, 154 N . W . 2d 320, 325 ( 1967) ) . T her e, the: evi dence r el at ed t o B us i ck’ s heal th i ns ur ance w as a dm i t t ed t o i m peach he r t es t i m ony th a t sh e su ffe re d p e rm a n e n t in ju rie s a s a re su lt o f th e a c c id e n t. B us i ck t es t i f

i ed thats he ce as ed phys i cal ther apy bec aus e s he coul d no l onger af f or d i t . T he f

actthats he s pentonl y $45 on thatther apy di s cr edi t ed her t es t i m ony. B usick , 856 So. 2d at310 ( emphasi s added) . T hi s C our thel d that“[ t ] he t es t i m ony w as not
s ol i ci t ed f

orthe purpos es of m i t i gat i ng herl os s orr educi ng damages ow ed t o B us i ck. ” Id . T h e re fo re , this C o u rt h e ld th e re w a s “ n o re v e rsib le e rro r . . . in a llo w in g th is te stim o n y w ith an appr opr i at e l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on. ” Id .

### 8

¶14 . W hi l e “i m peac hm entexce pt i on t o the col l at er al
- s our ce rul e” ha s been the t erm i no l ogy u s e d b y s o me c o u r t s , th a tp h r a s e i s a b i tmi s l e a d i n g a n d ma y c a u s e c o n f u s i o n . An

“ e x c e p tio n ” is d e fi n e d a s “ [o ]n e th a t is e x c e p te d , e s p . a c a s e n o t c o n fo rm in g to n o rm a l ru le s .” W e b ste r’s II N e w C o lleg e D ictio n a ry 3 9 0 (3 d e d . 2 0 0 1 ). T h e “ c o llate ra l-so u rc e ru le” is in
no w ay exce pt ed orexcl uded by the i m peac hm entof t es t i m ony. T he rul e r emai ns unchange d, and a de f

endantm ay notuse payment s re cei ved f r om a t hi r d par ty t o m i t i gat e or re d u c e a p la in tif

f’ s d a m a g e s . See Coker , 52 So. 2 d at3 57. T he mi s nom er ed “e xcept i on” p ertains t o im peach m ent of fal se t est i m on y b y ev i den ce of coll at eral -s ou rce paym ents . T h ere fore , co rrectl y stat ed , the issu e is w h ethe r a d efe n d an t m ay c ross -ex am ine th e p lai n ti ff
r egar di ng col l at er al
- s our ce pa ym ent s , fort he narr ow purpos e of i m peac hi ng f

al s e t es t i m ony, as appr oved by the 2003 B usickC o u rt . See B usick , 856 So. 2d at310. ¶15. I t i s a gi ven, r equi r i ng no ci t at i on, that court s s houl d never condone f al s e t es t i m ony. W hen a w i tnes s f

al s el y s w ear s t hathe or s he pai d, as oppos ed t o i ncurr ed, m edi cal expens es w h e n , in fa c t, th e m e d ica l e x p e n se s w e re p a id b y a th ird p a rty , the a fo re m e n tio n e d p rin c ip le i s vi ol at ed. T her ef

or e, t o the ext entthatcourt s of thi s s t at e have hel d thatevi dence of col l at er al
- s our ce pa ym ent s m ay notbe i ntr oduced f or t he purpos e of

i m peac hi ng f

al s e or m is le a d in g te s tim o n y , th o s e d e c is io n s a re e x p re s s ly o v e rr u le d . See Co rs e tti , 396 M as s . at 17 ( quot i ng G oldstein v . G on tarz , 36 4 M ass. 80 0, 81 2 (197 4)) (“i n som e ci rcum st ances, evi dence of

col l at er al sour ce i ncome m ay be admi s s i bl e, i n the di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge, ‘as p rob ati v e o f a r elev an t p rop o sit ion , say ‘co n tr o l’ o r credi bil i t y of a part i cular w i tness . ’ ”) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ). P erm i t t i ng evi dence of col l at er al
- s our ce pa ym ent s f orthe narr ow purpos e of

i m peac hi ng fa l s e orm i s l eadi ng t es t i m ony i s consi s t entw i th the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es

### Jus ti ceKit chens’ s l ac k of confi denc e in our tria l j udges to c ontrol t he a dmi ss ion of 2 

### evi denc e and fe ar s of

the ir “he ap[ ing] her et ofor e for bidde n evide nce ” int o tri al(Conc urringIn- Res ult -Only Opini on at ¶39) , i s m is pla ce d. Our sys te m of jus ti ceis depende nt upon t ri al jud ges p rop erly ap ply ing evid entiaryrules. 9 of E vi dence . R ul e 607 pr ovi des that“[ t ] he cr edi bi l i ty of a w i tnes s may be att acke d by a ny party . . . .” M iss. R . E vid. 60 7. T heref ore, an att ack u po n the cr edibi l i ty o f a w i tness t hr ough the i mpea c hmen to f f a l s e o rmi s l e a di ng t e s t i mony i s p e r mi s s i bl e . H oweve r , any e v id e n c e to b e a d m itte d u n d e rR u le 6 0 7 m u s t a lw a y s fi rs t b e d e e m e d re le v a n t, s ee M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of

E vi dence 401- 402 , and t hen f i l t er ed thr ough R ul e 403. M or eover , as 2 i n B usick , gr ant i ng a l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on m ay be appr opr i at e, s o as t o avoi d j ur or s bei ng l ed “t o cons i derpl ai nt i f

f s ’ c l ai m s uni m por t antortr i vi al ort o r ef us e pl ai nt i f

f s ’ ve r di ct s orr educe them, be l i evi ng thatotherw i s e ther e w oul d be unj us tdoubl e r ecove ry. ” Co rs e tti , 3 96 M ass. at17 ( quot i ng G o ld

ste in , 3 6 4 M ass. at 80 9 ). ¶16. T oday’ s deci s i on al s o comport s w i th the m andat e art i cul at ed i n ourrul es of evi dence . R ul e 102 pr ovi des thatourrul es of e vi dence s hal l pr om ot e the “gr ow th and deve l opm entof th e law o f e v id e n c e to th e e n d th a t th e tru th m a y b e a s c e rt a in e d a n d p ro c e e d in g s ju stly d eterm ined . ” M iss . R . E v id. 10 2 . T h e b en efit s d erive d from p erm itti n g su ch inq u iry are m i nim al l y tw o-f

old. F i rs t , i tel i m i nates the j ud i ci al conu nd rum of al l ow i ng k n o w n fal se test im o n y to b e c o n side red b y a jury . S ec o n d , iteli m inates ju ry co n side rati o n o f an il luso ry el ementof

damages pr emi s ed on f al s e t es t i m ony. ¶ 1 7 . W e ca n ag re e w ith the se p a ra te o p in io n o f Ju stic e K itch e n s th a t ev id e n c e o f c o llate ra ls our ce pa ym ent s “i s no trel evantupon the i nqui ry as t o w hetherone party has w r onged another . ” ( C oncurr i ng- I n- R es ul t - O nl y O pi ni on a t¶ 32) . N o l es s true, how ever , i s thatt he

### 10

ver aci ty of

any party i s r el evant , w hi ch i s the crux of thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on, i . e. , the condemnat i on of

f al s e t es t i m ony. J us t i ce K i t chens ’ s s ugges t i on thatt oday’ s deci s i on abr ogat es the rul e i s uncl ear , as the B usickC o u rt d e c id e d th is is s u e s ix y e a rs a g o . See B usick , 856 So. 2d at310. T he ca ses r el i ed upon by J us t i ce K i t chens pr edat e B usick . M o re o v e r, V

ance v. Her vey , 25 3 M iss. 75 1 , 1 7 9 S o . 2 d 1 (19 6 5 ), cit ed in Ju sti ce K it ch en s’s
s epar at e opi ni on, pr ovi des addi t i onal r at i onal e f orperm i t t i ng evi dence of col l at er al
- s our ce payment s f

orthe narr ow purpos e of i m peac hi ng f

al s e ormi s l e a di ng t es t i m ony i n B usick
- type cas es . I n Vance , “[ t ] he pl ai nt i f f w as perm i t t ed t o t es t i f y on cr os s - exami nat i on, overt he obj ect i on of

hi s att orney, thathe had r ece i ved w eekl y i ns ur ance benef i t s f r om J anuary 1963 thr ough J ul y 1964 f

orthe f i r s ti nj ury, and thi s i s as s i gned as err or . ” Id . at 7 5 4 . W h ile
a c k n o w led g in g th a t Cok er and Ethr idg e v. G oy e rCom pa ny , 241 M i s s . 333, 131 So. 2d 188 (1 9 6 1 ), “p ro n o u n c e so u n d law ,” th is C o u rt h e ld th a t: they have no appl i cat i on t o the ca s e atbarf orthe r eas on the pl ai nt i f f opened the s u b ject of the ind u str ial o r fi rstinjury b y intr o d u cing ev iden ce in reg ard ther et o. H e ca nnotnow compl ai n of c r os s exami nat i on on the very m att erhe has i ntr oduced a nd w hi ch ext ends the evi dence t o s how thatcompensa t i on payment s w er e made. V ance , 2 5 3 M is s . a t 7 5 5 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). See al s o Cr os by v. K

een , 200 M i s s . 590, 593- 9 4 , 2 8 S o . 2 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 3 (19 4 6 ) (qu o ti n g 3 1 C . J. S . E v iden ce , § 1 9 0 ) (“ [ t ] he p a rty w ho f

i rst i ntr od uces i m

prop er evi den ce can no tob j ectt o the adm issi on of evi den ce f rom the a dverse par t y re lat i ng t o the s am e m at t er . H ow ever , the admi s s i on of s uch evi dence i s nota mat t er of absol ute r i gh t , bu tres t s i n the soun d d i scr et i on of the co urt. . . . ”) ( em ph asi s added ). F al se t es t i m ony i s al w ays i m pr operevi dence .

### Spec if ic al ly, the circ uit

judgest at ed, “[ h] is toric alpre ce denc e s ugges t[ s] that t her e 3 

### is no im pea chm ent

exc eption t o thecol late ra l s ourc e r ule . Howe ver, m orere ce nt c as es contain lan gu age seemin glysug gestin g th at evid ence introducedfor p urp oses o ther thanto redu ce the mo netaryawardfor th e plaintiff, suchas impeachment, is p rop erly admitted.” 11 ¶1 8. I n t he ca s e s ub j udi ce , the lea rne d c ir cu itjud g e co n d u cted a v ery tho rou g h an alys is
r egar di ng M i t chel l ’ s t es t i m ony, i t s put at i ve pr ej udi ci al ef f ectupon R obi ns on Pr operty, and t he a pp l i c a bl e l a w . The c i r c ui tj ud ge f ou nd tha t , a l tho ug h M i t c he l l ha d t e s t i f i e d a bo ut
m e d ica l b ill s, s h e a lso h a d te stifie d a b o u t n o n m e d ica l ex p e n se s. H e c o n c lu d e d th a t h e c o u ld
n o t “s a y w ith c o n fid e n c e th a t th e p lain tiff w a s a ttribu tin g h e r fin a n c ial d iffic u lti e s d ire c tly t o herm edi cal bi l l s . ” A s such, t he ci r cui tcourt“di d notbel i eve the pl ai nt i f f’ s comm entw as u n d u l y p r e

j u d i c i a l t o wa r d th e d e f

e n d a n t . ” Ad d i t i o n a l l y , th e c i r c u i tj u d g e e x p r e s s e d s o me uncert ai nty f

ol l ow i ng hi s anal ys i s of the ca s el aw on w hethert o al l ow im peac hm entof M it ch ell , “fi n d [i n g ] [ h im ] self w ith o u t clea r gu idan ce . ” If B usick ’ s f ai l ur e t o overrul e pr i or 3
co n tr ary h o lding s cre ated an y u n ce rt ainty , tod ay ’s de cisi o n sh o u ld m ak e itcle a r th a t a
w i tnes s m ay, undervery l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s , be cr os s - exami ned o n col l at er al
- s our ce p ay m en ts. E ac h ca se in v o lves a fa ct-spe cifi c inq u iry . U n d er the se p arti cu lar facts, this C o u rt concl udes thatthe ci r cui tcourtcorr ect l y appl i ed the l aw w hen i tr ef us ed t o admi tevi dence of M i t chel l ’ s heal th i ns ur ance and M edi car e cove r age. I I . W he t he r t he c i r c ui t c o ur t a bu s e d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n fa i l i ng t o g r ant R o b in so n P r o p e r ty ’s m o tio n fo r n e w tr ia l. ¶ 1 9 . T h is C o u rt re v ie w s th e d e n ia l o f a m o tio n fo r n e w tr ia l f o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See P oole v. A vara , 9 0 8 S o . 2 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). T h is C o u rt“w il l no t setasid e a jury ’s
ver di ctand or dera new tr i al unl es s w e ar e convi nced thatthe ver di ctw as contr ary t o t he

### 12

s ubs t ant i al w ei ghtof the evi dence s o thatj us t i ce r equi r es thata new tr i al be gr ant ed. ” Id . at 727 ( ci t i ng Jesco, I

nc. v. W hitehead , 4 5 1 S o . 2 d 7 0 6 , 7 1 4 (M is s . 1 9 8 4 ) ( R o b e rt s o n , J ., sp ec ial ly co n cu rri n g )). ¶20. I n cons i der i ng a mot i on f ornew tr i al , thi s C ou rthas s etf or th the f

ol l ow i ng l i s t of fac tors that a tri al co u rtsh o u ld w eigh an d co n side r: ( 1) H as the s ear ch f

orthe true f

act s pr ocee ded as f

aras i tr eas onabl y m ay underthe pec ul i arf

act s and ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e? ( 2) T o w hat ext entw oul d i tbe unf ai rt o the party i n w hos e f avorthe ver di ct w as r eturned i n ef

f ectt o gi ve thatpa r ty' s a dver s ary a s econd bi t e atthe appl e? ( 3) C ons i der i ng the evi dence , i s ther e a s ubs t ant i al ba s i s f orbel i evi ng thatthe jury d isr eg ard ed their oa ths a n d fail ed to fo ll o w the in stru cti o n s o f th e C o u rt i n r eac hi ng i t s ver di ct ? Putanotherw ay, i s i tsub st anti al l y appar entthatthe jury ’s ve rdict i s the p rod u ct of p assio n , p rejud ice o r an y o ther arb itrary fac tor? ( 4) A s s umi ng a r gu e nd o tha tthe v e r di c ti s u nj us t( by r e f e r e nc e t o t he under l yi ng f

act s of the t r ans act i on or occ urr ence , t he com pl et e t ruth of w hi ch w e w ill n e v e r k n o w ), w h a t is th e im p a c t o f th a t "in ju stic e " u p o n th e p a rty agai ns tw hom the ver di cthas been r eturned? ( 5) I f a new tr i al i s or der ed, w i l l the party i n w hos e f avorthe ver di cthas been re tu rn e d b e d e p riv e d o f so m e fa ir a d v a n tag e h e e n jo y e d in th e first tria l? ( 6) A r e ther e any otherf act or s pr es ent , pecul i art o the part i cularcas e orthe p a rties , tha t w o u ld re n d e r ju st o r u n ju st th e g ra n t o r d e n ial o f a n e w trial? Ja ns s e n Pharm ac e uti c a, I nc . v. B ailey , 8 78 So. 2d 31, 60- 61 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t i ng Jes co, I nc. , 4 5 1 S o . 2 d at 71 5 -16 )). ¶21 . R ob i nson P rop erty arg u es that the c ir cu itj ud ge fai l ed to w ei gh these fact ors as a w hol e. Pr i m ar i l y, i ta s s ert s that , by r ef us i ng t o admi tthe evi dence of M i t chel l ’ s i ns ur ance c o v e ra g e , th e c ir c u it c o u rt d id n o t p e rm it th e “ tru e fa c ts” to p ro c e e d a s fa r a s re a so n a b ly
n e c e s s a ry . See id .

### See footnote3 sup ra . 4 

### 13 ¶22. T he ci r cui tj udge ent er ed a thor ough or derde nyi ng Robi ns on Pr operty’ s mot i on f or new tr i al . A f

t erexami ni ng the r el evantcas el aw and not i ng the l ack of cl eargui dance , t he
c irc u it j u d g e a c k n o w led g e d th a t h e c o u ld n o t sta te w ith c o n fid e n c e th a t h e w a s c o rre c t in
r ef us i ng t o admi tthe propos ed i m peac hm entevi dence . B uthe adde d thateven i f he had 4
e rre d , a n e w trial w a s n o t re q u ire d . H e fo u n d th a t M itch e ll’s c re d ib ili ty w a s s u b sta n tially i m peac hed by R obi ns on Pr operty’ s “vi gor ou s a tt a c k” s urr ou nd i ng the “de bacl e i nvol vi ng t he
erran t $1 0 , 0 0 0 [i n ] m ed ical ex p en ses a p p ea ri n g in the p lai n ti ff’ s m ed ical ex p en se su m m ary

. . . . ” H e al s o w as of t he opi ni on thatthe s i ze of the ver di ctcompar ed t o the r eques t ed
m edi cal expens es s ugges t ed thatM i t chel l ’ s cr edi bi l i ty had bee n cal l ed i nt o ques t i on. ¶23. T hi s C our t f

i nds that the ci r cui t court di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n denyi ng a new trial. CO NC L US I ON ¶24 . T he cir cuitcou rtdi d no terr i n ex cl ud i ng evidence o f M i t chell ’s i nsurance pay m ents , n o r d id it ab u se it s d isc re tio n in d e n y in g a n e w tri a l. T h e re fo re , th is C o u rt aff irm s th e C irc u it C our tof Tuni ca C ount y’ s f

i nal j udgm entand deni al of R obi ns on Pr operty’ s m ot i on f ornew trial. ¶25. AFF I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , P . J . , CONCU RS I N RE S UL T ONL Y. DI CK I NSON, J . , CO NCU RS W I TH S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY C A R L S O N , P . J . , R A N D O L P H A N D L A M A R , JJ . K IT C H E N S , J. , C O N C U R S IN RES ULT ON LY W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED I N PART BY W A L L E R , C . J.

### “Yesha llknow thetr uth, and the truth sha llmake you f re e. ” John 8:32. 5 

### “The serul es [of

evi denc e] sha llbe c onstrued . . . to t he e nd that t

he truth may be 6 

### as ce rt ained and proc ee dings jus tly det er mined. ” Ma

j. Op. at ¶ 16 ( ci ting

Mis s. R. Evid. 102). 14 DI CK I NS ON , J US T I CE , CO NC UR RI NG : ¶26. I ha ve att empt ed w i thouts ucce s s t o unde r s t and the concern v oiced by m y l earned
c o llea g u e , Ju stic e K itch e n s, w h o o p in e s th a t to d a y ’s m a jo rity o p in io n “ m a k e s a c c e ss to pr evi ous l y f

orbi dden evi dence of

col l at er al
- s our ce pa ym ent s e xc e e di ng l y e f f ort l e s s . ” I agr ee w i th m y f

r i end on the poi nt , buthas t en t o s t at e that , i n m y j udgm ent , acce s s t o such e vi dence
s houl d, i ndeed, b e eff

ort l es s . A f

t eral l , i tcomes i nt o pl ay onl y w her e the pl ai nt i f f has l i ed on the w i tnes s s t and. O urrul es – w hetherof a nci ent ormore r ece nt vi nt age – s houl d never

5 6 p rotec t a l iar. ¶2 7. T he s ubj ect of m y f r i e nd ’ s c on c urr i ng op i ni on i s the f ol l owi ng i s s ue a s f

r a med by Ju stic e R a n d o lp h : “W h e th e r a d e fe n d a n t m a y c ro ss -e x a m in e th e p lain tiff re g a rd in g c o llate ra ls our ce pa ym ent s , f

orthe narr ow purpos e of i m peac hi ng f

al s e t es t i m ony. ” O ne w oul d hope the i s s ue i s r ar el y pr es ent ed but , w hen i ti s , m y f i r m vi ew i s thatnei therrul e nors t atut e nor thi s C our t ’ s pr ece dents houl d pr eventthe l i e f r om bei ng expos ed. ¶28. Fur therm or e, I ques t i on m y f r i end’ s pr ognos t i cat i on thatt oday’ s deci s i on w i l l s avage cas es w her e pl ai nt i f

f s m ake “ beni gn r ef

er ence s t o f

i nanci al har ds hi p. ” T hati s pr eci s el y w hat h ap p en ed in the ca se b efo re u s tod ay , a n d the m ajority c o rrectl y c o n clud es that the p lai n ti ff’ s t es t i m on y w as acc ept abl e, and thatthe tr i al j udge’ s excl us i on of the col l at er al
- s our ce p a y m e n ts w a s e m in e n tly c o rre c t.

### 15

CARL S ON, P . J . , RANDOL P H AND L AM AR, J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON. KI TC HENS , J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N RE S UL T ONL Y: ¶ 2 9 . I ag re e w ith the m a jo rity tha t “th e circ u it c o u rt c o rr e c tly a p p lie d th e la w w h e n it
r ef us ed t o a dm i te vi dence of M i t chel l ’ s heal th i ns ur ance and M edi car e cove r age. ” M aj . O p. a t ¶ 1 8 . B u t in m y ju d g m e n t, th a t co rre c t ap p lica tio n ste m m e d fro m o u r lo n g -h e ld p rin c ip le thatpart i es m ay notadduce evi dence t hatdam ages have bee n m i t i gat ed by col l at er al
- s our ce payment s . I can e ndor s e nei therthe abr ogat i on northe w eake ni ng o f t hatw i s e rul e. T her ef or e, I j oi n t oday’ s j udgm enti n r es ul tonl y. ¶3 0. L etus be underno i l l us i on s r e ga r di ng the i mpac tof t od a y’ s pr on ou nc ement . T he
m a jori ty o p inion ’s aim is no “n arro w p u rpo se,” M aj. O p . at ¶1 4 , an d M issi ssipp i’ s lo n g s ta n d in g c o lla te ra l- s o u rc e ru le d o e s n o t “ re m a in [ ] u n c h a n g e d ” b y to d a y ’s ju d g m e n t. I d. T h is d e c isio n m a k e s a c c e ss to p re v io u sly fo rb id d e n e v id e n c e o f c o llate ra l-so u rc e p a y m e n ts ex ce ed ing ly effo rt less an d o v erloo k s m ajor im p li ca ti o n s tha t m ay o p en the d o o r t o the ru le’s demi s e. ¶31. A s ear l y as 1854, the U . S. Supr eme C our t r ecogni zed the pr i nci pl e, l ong ago cr af t ed
o f n e c e s s ity b y E n g lis h c o u rt s , s ee Y a tes v. W hy te , 4 B i ng. N . C . 272 ( 1838) , as “a doc tr i ne w el l e s t abl i s hed . . . . ” Monti cel lo v. Mol lis on , 58 U . S. 152, 155, 15 L . E d. 68, 17 H ow . 152 (1 8 5 4 ). “T h e c o n tra c t w ith th e ins u re r is in th e n a tu re o f a w a g e r b e tw e e n th ird p a rties , w ith
w hi ch the tr es pas s erhas no conce r n. ” I d. ¶32. T he pol i cy cons i der at i ons gi r di ng the col l at er al
- s our ce rul e ar e l egi on , bu tperhaps chi ef l y r anked a m ong t hem al l i s the r ecogni t i on thats uch evi dence s i m pl y i s notr el evant upon the i nqui r y as t o w hetherone party has w r onged another . U nt i l re cent l y, t hi s C our thas

### 16

h eld c o n sist en tl y that the c o llate ral-sou rce rule d o es n o t yield ev en to co n side rati o n s o f a
w itn e s s ’s v e ra c ity . See E thridge v. G oyerCo. , 2 41 M i s s . 333, 338 ( 1961) ( evi dence of col l at er al
- s our ce payment s notperm i t t ed eve n “t o contr adi ctt es t i m ony thatthe pl ai nt i f f gave in th e tr ia l . . .” ). See al

s o V ance v. Her vey , 25 3 M iss. 75 1 , 75 5 (19 6 5 ) (ru le of E thridge is “so u n d law ”). ¶33. T o the cr edi t of m y col l eague s w i th w hos e j udgm entI pa r t w ays t oday, the dec i s i on in the instan t case d o es n o t auto m ati ca ll y all o w ad m issi o n of su ch ev iden ce . R athe r, tod ay ’s ju d g m e n t p u rp o rts to g ra n t it s b les sin g o n ly u p o n “ e v id e n c e o f c o llate ra l s o u rc e p a y m e n ts

. . . i ntr oduced f

orthe purpos e of

i m peac hi ng f

al s e orm i s l eadi ng t es t i m ony . . . . ” M aj . O p. at¶1 7. W e r e s uc h e vi de nc e a dmi s s i bl e i n a v a c uu m, the n I woul d c on c urf ul l y. B utany cont ent i on thats uch evi dence w i l l notbe pr ocur ed w i th the i nt entand eff ectof i nf or m i ng j ur or s thata pl ai nt i f

f’ s damages w er e cove r ed by i ns ur ance i s notroot ed i n r eal i ty. I ndeed,
one w oul d fi nd i m pos s i bl e t he t as k of s ugges t i ng w i th si ncer i ty t hats om e att orneys w i l l not as s i duous l y f

err etouts uch evi dence atevery oppor tuni ty forp re ci s el y thatpurpos e. T he
m aj or i ty m akes avai l abl e an outr i ghtci r cumvent i on of the col l at er al
- s our ce rul e w i th the
s i m pl e, pos s i bl y pr et extual , que s t i on of w hetherthe pl ai nt i f

f i n a ny gi ven cas e has s uf f er ed per s onal f

i nanci al har ds hi p. I f

the ans w eri s yes , as i tal m os tal w ays w oul d be, then the exami ni ng att orney has pos i t i oned hi s orhercl i entt o of f erpr oof of col l at er al
- s our ce pay m ents . ¶34. I f

i nd the maj or i ty’ s r el i ance on ourdeci s i on i n Busick v. S t . Jo hn , 856 So. 2d 304 ( M i s s . 2003) , t o be mi s pl ace d. I n B usick , thi s C our tnot ed the exi s t ence of an i m peac hm ent e x c e p tio n in so m e ju risd ictio n s b u t u lti m a tely a v o ided the c o ll ateral-sou rce issue b y co rrec tly

### By arguing, on one hand, that today’s j udgme nt is roote d f ir mly in prior

pre ce dent 7 

### but, feeling , onth e o th er han d, th e needto o verru le prio r case law expressly , the majo rity appe ar s to c once de, at

thever y le as t, that t

he r el evant l angua ge in Busick on whic h today’s dec is ion res ts is not e mphati c. I a gre e. Howeve r, what eve r dire ction c an be gl eaned f rom the am bigui ty s trongly s ugges ts that, ultim at ely, the Busick Court re je ct ed the e ncroac hme nt upon thecol late ra l- sourcerul e a dopte d today. Para gra ph 16 , in whi ch the Busick Court spokeit s f

ina l words regarding theis suenow befor e us , f inds no er ror in t he i mpe ac hme nt evidence pres ent ed in that c as e, but t hat paragraph doe s not

indi catecl early whether the conc lus ion i s rea che d bec aus e of a proce dura l bar or

bec aus e of a n ewlyre cogni ze d exc eption . See id. at

310. Para gra

ph 15 is cl eare r, though. It begins by rei te rating Mis si ss ippi ’s long- hel d re cogni ti on that thecol late ra l- sourcerul e s tands wi thout exc eption. Then- Pre si ding Justic e Sm it h b rie fly, a lm ost

ca sua lly, m entione d that s omest at es have recog nizedthis sin gle ex ceptio n. Id. at 30 9-3 10 . An d th en, as quic k ly as it mention ed th is point , them aj ori ty droppe d the is suef rom i ts dis cus si on. The Busick o pin iond id n ot su gg est that t he e xception was being adopte d, that it shoul d be a dopte d, or

eve n that e xis ting Mis si ss ippilaw appe ar ed t o suppor t i ts adoption. Inde ed, theon ly pronounc em ent of Mis si ss ippilaw there in wa s the r ec ognition t hat thi s Cour t ha s ne ver

per mi tt ed any exc eption to th e collateral-so urce ru le. Id. at 309. Al so, to t

he e xte nt t

hat the Busick

Court found per mi ss ibl e e vide nceof c oll at eral -s ourc e payme nts , it so found only under

theunusua l s et of f ac ts of that

cas e, in which theplainti ff ’s att orne y aske d for a li mi ting inst ruc ti on in li eu of requestin g a mistrial. Id. at 308-09. For thes e r ea sons , my vie w is that t he porti on of Busick onwh ich to day ’s majorityop inio n d epen ds is d ictum an d limited to that case’s facts. I c once de that

thi s c onclusi on al one doe s not for ec los e the Court

from proce eding down the trai l e mbarke d upon today, but we s hould at l ea st re cogni zethat wedo so wi thout re gard for theprinciple s of stare d

ecisis . 17 not i ng thatthe i s s ue had notbeen pr es erved f orappel l at e r evi ew by w ay of a t i m el y obj ect i on a t trial. I

d. a t 3 0 9 -3 1 0 . B usickdi d not , ei therexpl i ci t l y ori m pl i ci t l y, cr eat e the rul e of l aw 7 to w h ich the m ajority p u rpo rt ed ly ad h ere s. If B usicksta n d s fo r a n y b ro a d ly a p p lica b le p rin c ip le o f la w a t all, it is th a t ev id e n c e o f c o llate ra l-so u rc e p a y m e n ts s u rv iv e s a p p e llate
re v ie w o n ly w h e n th e a g g ri e v e d p a rt y d id n o t lo d g e a tim e ly o b je c tio n th e re to . I

d. at310. ¶35. O ne of

the ce ntr al pol i cy f

oundat i ons s uppor t i ng the col l at er al
- s our ce rul e i s that any alt ern ati v e w o u ld p u n ish p arti es w ith the fo resigh t an d c are to p rotec t th em selv es a n d o thers b y c a rry in g h e a lth c o v e ra g e . T o d a y ’s d e c isio n h a s g re a t p o ten tial to p u n ish su c h fo re sig h t.

### 18

¶ 3 6 . T h is d e c isio n als o ign o re s th e im p lic a tio n s p re s e n te d b y s u b ro g a tio n , w h ic h is contr actual l y r equi r ed by mostcont empora ry heal th i ns ur ance pol i ci es and pl ans , a s w el l as by go vernm ent pr og ram s such as M edicar e and M ed icaid, and by ou r s t at e’s w orkers ’
c o m p e n sa tio n sta tu te. W h e n a ll o r so m e p o rtio n o f a p lain tiff’s c laim -re late d m e d ica l co sts h a v e b e e n p a id b y third p a rties su c h as the se , a p lain tiff w h o is a w a rd e d m o n e y d a m a g e s in
c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n mu s tr e i mb u r s e t h a tth i r d p a r ty f r o m h i s o rh e rr e c o v e ry o f th o s e s a me com po nen t s of cl ai m -r el at ed d am ages. ¶37. I n a tr i al , i t l i kel y w oul d benef i t the t or t f

eas or f or j ur or s t o get the i m pr es s i on thatt he p lain tiff w a s a ttem p tin g to “ d o u b le d ip ” b y a sk in g fo r a v e rd ict th a t i n c lu d e d m e d ica l co sts al r eady pa i d on the pl ai nt i f f’ s behal f

by a t hi r d par ty, such a s the pl ai nt i f f’ s heal th i ns ur ance c a rrie r. F o r ju ro rs to b e so m isle d , w h e th e r u n in ten tio n a lly o r o th e rw ise , w o u ld b e p a ten tly
u n fa ir, an d th e p re v e n tio n o f th is s o rt o f in ju stic e p ro v id e s a n o th e r c o m p e lli n g re a so n to
m ai ntai n invi olat e M i ssi ssi pp i ’s w el l -es t abli shed co l l at eral -s ou rce rule. Just i ce w ou l d b est be s erved by r et ent i on, w i thoutexce pt i on , o f thi s w i s el y conce i ved, t i m e- t es t ed rul e that p re c lu d e s ju ro rs f

ro m b e in g in fo rm e d th a t a p lain tiff’s m e d ica l c o sts h a d b e e n d e fra y e d , in
w h o le o r in p a rt, th ro u g h th ird -p a rty p a y m e n ts, u n les s, o f c o u rse , w e a lso sh o u ld h o ld th a t, if a jury w ere g iven su ch info rm ati o n , a p lai n ti ff w o u ld the n be all o w ed to m ak e the juro rs pr i vy t o the r eal i t i es of

s ubr ogat i on. ¶3 8 . S im il arly, i t w o u ld see m on ly fair, in the interest of fu ll d iscl o su re, t o info rm juro rs o f d e fe n d a n ts’ a p p lica b le liab ili ty in su ra n c e s o th a t th e y w o u ld k n o w th a t a d e fe n d a n t w o u ld
n o t b e c a u se d to su ffe r p e rso n a l fin a n c ial h a rd sh ip b y a n a d v e rs e v e rd ict. B y a n a lo g y to t oday’ s deci s i on, a pl ai nt i f f’ s att orney coul d as k a def endant , “W oul d you s uf f erper s onal

### 19

f i na nc i a l h a r ds hi p i f

y ou h a d t o pa y the p l a i nt i f f’ s med i c a l b i l l s , l os ti nc ome, a nd ot her p rov en da m ag es? ” T h is w o u ld op en th e d o o r t o the p lai n ti ff’ s b eing ab le t o rev ea l t o the ju ry th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w o u ld b e re liev e d o f p e rso n a lly p a y in g th o se d a m a g e s b e c a u se th e y w o u ld b e p a i d b y f

u n d s f r o m a col lat er als our ce , na m ely the de fen d an t’ s l iabili ty i n su ran ce ca rri er, u p to the li m it s o f th e d efe n d an t’ s ap p li ca b le co v era g e. Itis ap p are n t th at th e m ajority ’s tin k e rin g w ith th is v e n e ra b le o ld ru le m a y h a v e ra m ifica tio n s fa r b e y o n d its a p p lica tio n to the i ns t antcas e. ¶39. E ven w i thoutthe pol i cy conc erns thats uppo rtm y con cl usi on, I s t i l l w oul d not be comfort abl e j oi ni ng thi s deci s i on beca us e the maj or i ty does l i t t l e t o expl ai n how and w hen
ev iden ce o f co ll ateral-sou rce p ay m en ts m ay b e a d d u ce d . N o tw ith stan d ing the m ajority ’s cont ent i on thatthe col l at er al
- s our ce rul e “r emai ns unc hanged” by i t s deci s i on, M aj . O p. at ¶14, “the purpos e of

i m peac hi ng f

al s e orm i s l eadi ng t es t i m ony” atw hi ch t oday’ s j udgm ent is a im e d is a n e x c e e d in g ly v a g u e s ta n d a rd . I d. U n d o u b ted ly , so m e trial c o u rts w ill a p p ly th is
n ew rule na rrow ly an d all o w ev iden ce of co ll ateral-sou rce pa y m en ts o n ly w h en the p lai n ti ff h a s s te p p e d s q u a re ly in a h o le o f its o w n d ig g in g . C o n v e rse ly , o th e r tria l ju d g e s w ill enthus i as t i cal l y l eap a s tr i de the hors e l oos ed f r om i t s s t abl e by t oday’ s m aj or i ty and hea p her et of or e f orbi dd e n e vi de nc e up on a pl a i nt i f f’ s mos tbe ni gn r e f

e r e nces t o f

i nanci al har ds hi p. ¶40. T o the ext entthatmy f r i ends i n the m aj or i t y co ntend t hat m y co nclus i on vi ol at es e v id e n tia ry c o n c e rn s a n d B ib lic a l c o n c e rn s a lik e , s ee C o n c. O p . at ¶2 6 , n . 1 -2 (D ickin so n , J. ),
m y col l eague s , f

orw hom I have the deepe s tr es pect , ha ve r eac hed thei rconcl us i on by w ay o f an o v e rsim p li fi ed v iew o f th e re al-w o rl d effec ts t o d ay ’s de cisi o n w il l hav e. T h e C o u rt rea ch es it s co n clus ion w ith insu ffi cien t con side rati o n o f th e p rac ti ca l i m p li ca ti o n s the reo f,

### 20

the i nevi t abl e r eal
- w or l d ef f e ct s ther eof

i n thi s s t at e’ s tr i al court s , and the unf ai rdi s advant age atw hi ch pl ai nt i f

f s ar e pl ace d t her eby. T he f ul l nes s of

t oday’ s j udgm ent i s a s l i ppery s l ope upon w hi ch I am com pel l ed nott o s t ep. T her ef or e, I concuri n i t s r es ul tbutnothi ng m or e. W ALLER, C. J . , J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART.