However, the collateral source doctrine dates back to 1854, and is intended to promote justice and to assess remedies for fault against the tortfeasor, rather than allowing him to avoid responsibility for setting the losses in motion.
12.
For example, there is a split over whether the collateral source doctrine should be abolished, and there is a healthy debate over whether it would be beneficial to further restrict the ability of attorneys to charge contingent fees.
13.
In the U . S ., reform has typically limited the scope of tort law and damages available, such as limiting joint and several liability, the collateral source rule, or capping noneconomic damages for state constitutions by state supreme courts, with the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution possibly also relevant.
14.
But if " collateral sources " are broadly construed to include gifts from charities _ including the many set up to aid victims'families after the terrorist attacks _ as well as extended medical benefits and other sources of support, awards from the fund could be reduced significantly or even erased altogether, said Clifford.
15.
As of 1987, English law was less generous to the plaintiff in the following ways : contingent fee arrangements were restricted, English judges tried more decisions and set damages rather than juries, wrongful death lawsuits were relatively restricted, punitive damages were relatively unavailable, the collateral source rule was restricted, and strict liability, such as for product liability, was relatively unavailable.
16.
If evidence of the collateral source is admitted and the fact-finder reduces the award to compensate for the already-paid damages, this can result in undercompensation for the injury, as the lien holder will generally attempt to recover the full value of any lien, thus leaving the plaintiff uncompensated for lost earnings, pain, anguish, or other non-economic damages.
17.
In contrast, a 2006 study by Emory University professors Paul Rubin and Joanna Shepherd argued that tort reform actually saved tens of thousands of lives because " lower expected liability costs result in lower prices, enabling consumers to buy more risk-reducing products such as medicines, safety equipment, and medical services, and as consumers take additional precautions to avoid accidents . " They also concluded that " caps on noneconomic damages, a higher evidence standard for punitive damages, product liability reform, and prejudgment interest reform lead to fewer accidental deaths, while reforms to the collateral source rule lead to increased deaths ."
