*1
consent,
ty,—all a commis- group men small
formed possibly, to
sion, gullible, sensitive talk, seek-
salesmanship, and without sweet tax- any right in the
ing bids and without protest of
payers by other referendum or its prevent project,
any kind to —albeit quite
development may be hazardous why you and have to
ruinous. This is etc., taxes, corporations, that rich
more so exempt and need
buying the bonds are tax returns tax
not sweat too hard to fill out income, April 15
showing taxable come year. County each Commissioners
obviously the fact that this are blind to County secu-
project can rob the of revenue
rity increase their own and at the same time by relieving tax burden others
income obligation. December
that same After thing year, very this now
this now,
proves, be done. What Brown cannot
Cow? Ottley, son, Trent Lee
ful age four. at time his death who fatal Trent Lee suffered an automobile when was struck operated by The case was the defendant. *2 sitting tried the without to court below jury, a the and the court found issues of liability in plaintiff. favor of the prior
The court below found that to the son, plaintiff his the of the incurred costs of medical in the care and treatment $1180.80, sum expenses of and that said directly were reasonably incurred and arose the in from accident which the defendant Following was involved. the death the of plaintiff child the incurred the costs of expenses funeral and burial in the reason- able sum of $525.76.
At the his time of the son policy in of automobile insurance was policy the full and effect in which force plaintiff the named insured. Under was provisions the terms the medical of of policy paid the the insurance carrier plaintiff In addition the sum $500. Thomas, Armstrong, Rawlings, Ben E. plaintiff policies thereto the had Schaerrer, Lake Rawlings, Salt West & and Blue Shield insurance with Blue Cross appellant. City, for the plaintiff in the named as which Christian, Gary Kipp and D. Carmen E. for coverage provided subscriber and which Charlier, City, Lake Kipp Salt & and treatment sub- medical care respondent. dependents. Under scriber and to his Blue Shield policy latter Blue Cross and
TUCKETT, Justice: the sum of paid plaintiff $1009.30. apply payment of medical in toward this action plaintiff commenced on the above hospital expenses. Premiums wrong- below to recover for the court paid son, policies mentioned of insurance were he is entitled to recover plaintiff. reasonably defendant those amounts expended purpose. there Had opinion that The trial court was of been no insurance the would have was, plaintiffs son deceased been out-of-pocket entitled to recover his beneficiary and policy, the terms of the expenditures for medical care and for payable became thereunder the benefits burial question. child part The de- estate. decedent’s fact that expense at his own trial cedent left other estate. carried protect against insurance to such plaintiff had incurred court found that the contingencies should not inure to the bene- expenses and treatment for medical care wrongdoer.3 fit in expenses for his son and for burial deducted The court the sum of $1706.56. areWe the court policies proceeds from the insurance below erred in from the amount damages plaintiff’s special and awarded damages to which the thereto addition In sum of $197.26. would otherwise been entitled general damages awarded paid by amounts the insurance carriers. the sum of costs. $6500 The matter is returned court below *3 for a judgment modification of the appealed to this The conformity opinion. to this Plaintiff is claiming that the court below erred entitled to costs. special the amount of the damages he have which would otherwise CROCKETT, J.,C. and CALLISTER in proceeds from the been entitled the ELLETT, JJ., and concur. policies. agree. It surance this we With duty support was the HENRIOD, (dissenting). son,1 so, if Justice he is able to do
duty
imposed by
is
in this State.2
statute
dissent,
opinion
because the
sounds
duty
support
duty of
The
includes the
lays
it
like
down a rule that the
furnishing medical care and treatment.
by
payments
can retain the
made to him
duty
plaintiff being
legal
under
companies,
insurance
retain
also
discharge
the costs medical
collecting
judg-
same amounts in
on his
against
care and treatment and for
burial of ment
Had the main
tortfeasor.
Burbidge v.
Light
3.Phillips
1,
Bennett,
1.
& Traction
Utah
v.
2d
439
21 Utah
Co.
,
566,
57 Utah
399 Perhaps remanded is opinion said the case'would be this dissent much ado about nothing, Ottley to the effect since I am convinced that with instructions pro representing judgment gets must he judgment hold whatever amount of companies against is- paid by the Hill as trustee for the insurers tanto amounts This, in an they paid amount which him. suing policies, (every one the three course, multiplicity leads suits clause), subrogation would which had statute, S—IS, that our Title Code Utah 31— companies trust be held in 1953, Annotated and the case Johanson payments their interests made such as seek to eliminate. The com- insurance peared, have concurred. I would panies crazy, in this case would be a claim plaintiff here did not subrogation, on sue authorities not to con- Hill, by of his against since, virtue impress judgment a trust on the companies, such tracts with insurance against Hill received for the amounts subrogation.1 theirs, by way of claim was they paid the former for the dam- exhibits. were These insurance contracts ages already paid by the insurers. antipathy an case is based on Johanson The lower court either should be af- says suits, it multiple nonetheless but firmed, alternatively im- or instructed to insured, hut that of claim is not insurers, press in favor of trust pay- the latter’s after that of insurer consonant dis- with observations of this sent. the former. ment to upon Cudahy, 114, principle,
1. 152 Johanson v. 107 Utah of the “collateral source” n whichthe main Forsey Hale, (1944). apparently v. relies P.2d 98 See (1962), Phillips 315, citing P.2d That 2d 373 904 Bennett. case 13 Utah bottomed, rehearing inapropos at 14 is apparently, since it its reversal on Utah here respect assumption (1963), with in- 2d P.2d payment possible application right subrogation. surer had no double