Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00956-GIVIS Document 166 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
B. KURT PRICE, WAYNE WARREN, )
AND CHRISTOPHER D. FORAKER, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
) C.A. N0. O4-956 (GMS)
L. AARON CHAFFINCH, )
THOMAS F. MACLEISH, )
DAVID B. MITCHELL, AND DIVISION )
OF STATE POLICE, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Presently before the court is a damages-related dispute between the parties involving the
applicability of the collateral source (or collateral benefit) mle. "Under the collateral benefit mle,
payment which a plaintiff receives for his or her loss from another source is not credited against the
defendant’s liability for all damages resulting from its wrongful or negligent act." Craig v. Y & Y
Snacks, Inc., 721 F.2d 77, 83 (3d Cir. 1983). The defendants point out, however, that this general
rule "d0es permit the tortfeasor to obtain the advantage of payments made by himself or from a fund
created by him; in such an instance the payments come, not from a collateral source, but from the
defendant himself." Yarrington v. Thornburg, 205 A.2d l, 2 (Del. 1964) (emphasis added). Thus,
according to the defendants, they are entitled to have any damages awarded against them offset by
workers’ compensation payments and disability pension benefits paid to the plaintiffs by the State
of Delaware.
The fundamental flaw with the defendants’ argument is that it rests on the assumption that
the State of Delaware could be found liable in this case. As the plaintiffs point out, defendants

Case 1 :04-cv—00956-GIVIS Document 166 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 2 of 2
David B. Mitchell- who is sued only in his official capacity — and the Division of State Police are
named only for the purpose ofcollecting attorneys’ fees and costs. The tme liability, ifany, will be
the responsibility of defendants Thomas F. MacLeish and L. Aaron Chaffinch in their personal
capacities. Therefore, the court agrees with the plaintiffs that the collateral source mle applies in this
case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
I. The defendants’ motion for an offset (D.I. 149) be DENIED; and
2. The plaintiffs’ motion to apply the collateral source mle (D.I. 159) be GRANTED.
Dated: May I L ,2006 I
ED STATES DISTRI T JUDG
2