Document: 375 U.S. 253 84 S.Ct. 316 11 L.Ed.2d 307 EICHELv.NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. No. 480. Dec. 16, 1963. Arnold B. Elkind and Richard C. Machcinski, for petitioner. Gerald E. Dwyer, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner, who had been employed by respondent New York Central Railroad 40 years, brought this action against under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., in District Court Southern of York. The complaint alleged that 1960, a result respondent's negligence petitioner suffered permanently disabling injury. jury returned verdict $51,000 entered judgment accordance with verdict. Respondent offered evidence was receiving $190 month disability pension payments Retirement Act 1937, 50 309, 228b(a) 4. This purpose impeaching testimony to his motive not returning work permanency injuries. trial court excluded response objection petitioner's counsel. Appeals Second Circuit reversed, holding it prejudicial error exclude pension, remanded 'for new trial, limited, however, issues injury resulting damages * *.' 2 Cir., 319 F.2d 12, 14. affirmed determination negligence.' Ibid. We grant certiorari reverse Appeals. does dispute would be highly improper considered mitigation Thus has recognized that: 3 'The is substantially Social Security employees common carriers. benefits received such system social legislation are directly attributable contributions employer, so they cannot caused employer.' York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. Leary, 204 461, 468, cert. denied, 346 856, 74 71, 98 L.Ed. 370.1 4 argues payments, although concededly inadmissible offset or mitigate damages, admissible bearing on extent duration At counsel argued show 'a (petitioner's) continuing work, deciding continue going back after last accident.' On basis argument concluded disputed should have admitted because: 'Its substantial probative value reasonably said outweighed risk will create danger undue prejudice through being incompetent set-off lost earnings.' F.2d, at 20. 5 disagree. In our view likelihood misuse clearly outweighs evidence.2 Insofar bears issue malingering, there generally other having more involving less than receipt pension. Moreover, violate spirit federal statutes if 4, were malingering an employee asserting claim Act. recently occasion reminded collateral readily subject jury. Tipton Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc., 34, 1.3 It long showing defendant insured creates misuse.4 Similarly, we must recognize insurance involves impact. hold therefore properly payments. Accordingly, reversed case proceedings consistent opinion. 6 Reversed remanded. 7 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS concurs result. 8 HARLAN, concurring part dissenting part. 9 Once again, I am obliged record my granted kind, only question admissibility suit 51. See opinion earlier Term, S.Ct., p. 3. 10 merits, agree majority below but different reasons. Whether 307, 228a, depends balance between its which offered, malingerer, possibility from jury's consideration irrelevant. When sort struck, should, except rare instances, left discretion t ial judge, review abuse. Uniform Rules Evidence, Rule 45; Model Code 303. he best position weigh relevant factors, compared proof adducible same end effectiveness limiting instructions. Believing rule followed here, concur reversing below, held matter law also directed admission retrial. For reasons, dissent majority's required excluded. see no reason why evidentiary questions given treatment when arise F.E.L.A. contexts. Sinovich Erie R. 230 658, 661; Page St. Louis S. Ry. 312 84, 94. Gregory Kalven, Cases Materials Torts (1959), pp. 480 482; McCormick, Damages (1935), 310, n. 2; Comment, 38 Mich.L.Rev. 1073. Cf. Evidence (1954), c. 19; Wigmore, (1940), 282a. Jury, Law, Personal Injury Damage Award, 19 Ohio St.L.J. 158, 169. notes 1—3, supra.

Category: 7