Talk:Collateral source rule

Untitled

I'm removing the "global perspective" tag, because this rule, due to its common law nature is only relevant to legal systems descended from the English common law: England and her colonies. Thus a non-English perspective is just down right pointless. Caelarch (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you sure that this is a common law principle that also applies in former British colonies? I ask because, although IANAL, I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply in Australia. In fact to the contrary, where the plaintiff is eligible for statutory compensation, that sum must be considered in claims for damages. I don't know if that's a recent change but I believe it to be have been the case for at least ten years if not much longer. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, according to our own Tort reform article, the collateral source rule is US case law dating only to 1854. This article also describes it as one of "the oddities of American accident law." This still doesn't mean the {{globalize}} tag is required, but I've removed the claims that it's Common Law. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-objective

This article reads like an argument for the collateral source rule. The last paragraph starts with "however," as if to rebut the previous paragraph. I don't know enough about the rule to edit it myself, but as it stands it certainly doesn't read as objective. Nickmleonardi (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)