2003 accident. And when I questioned her she said, yes, at one point in time she was claiming that she was permanently injured because of that accident. I think that’s something that’s not insignificant and we should keep in mind when we look at the evidence of this particular case. In denying Squires’ motion for a new trial, the circuit court explained that the other pleading merely duplicated Kurtz’s testimony and was more prejudicial than probative. The circuit court further explained its concern that admitting the pleading would have violated the collateral source rule and risked tainting the jury because the jurors would have wanted to know if Kurtz was compensated from the other lawsuit. See Moore v. Kluthe & Lane Ins. Agency, Inc., 89 S.D. 419, 434, 234 N.W.2d 260, 269 (1975) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 23.] Squires’ main complaint is that he
holding that punitive damages are recoverable under the priceanderson act to the extent that damages assessed under the act would not be paid from federal monies recognizing that compensation from a collateral source indepen dent of the wrongdoer will not reduce the damages recoverable from the wrongdoer holding that payments from a tortfeasors insurer are not from a collateral source because they stem directly from the tortfeasor holding that unemployment compensation benefits received by plaintiff are collateral source and that defendant could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits holding that a clause providing that the insurer has a right to recover damages from a responsible third party referred to a tortfeasor because the use of damages in bodily injury cases means pecuniary compensation resulting from an unlawful or negligent act by a wrongdoer