Opinion ID: 1379033
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Also admissible for impeachment

Text: While the evidence of collateral benefits is admissible in this case to show motive, it is also admissible for the separate purpose of impeachment. As the majority acknowledges, use of such evidence is proper to impeach the witness if the witness first testifies inconsistently. See Majority at 804-805 (Injured parties may, however, waive the protections of the collateral source rule by opening the door to evidence of collateral benefits.). [6] Johnson voluntarily took the stand and testified that after the injury he had just barely enough money to live on or get by, Appeal Board Record (ABR) (9/7/90) at 64, and that we don't have as much money as we used to for buying things, ABR (9/7/90) at 65. Introduction of evidence that Johnson is receiving more money now than he did when he was working is excellent impeachment evidence. As the Third Circuit held, the collateral benefit rule cannot be made a springboard from which a plaintiff may go forward with affirmative evidence ... of financial need and then seek immunity from cross-examination regarding it. Gladden v. P. Henderson & Co., 385 F.2d 480, 484 (3d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1013, 88 S.Ct. 1262, 20 L.Ed.2d 162 (1968). Yet the majority allows just that today. For these reasons I dissent. DURHAM, C.J., concurs.