(dissenting).
[¶ 37.] The majority correctly notes that under South Dakota law, “ ‘[t]otal or partial compensation received by an injured party from a collateral source, wholly independent of the wrongdoer, does not operate to reduce the damages recoverable from the wrongdoer.’ ” Moore v. Kluthe & Lane Ins. Agency, Inc., 89 S.D. 419, 434, 234 N.W.2d 260, 269 (1975) (quoting Swift & Company v. Gutierez, 76 Idaho 82, 277 P.2d 559, 561 (1954)) (quoting Gersick v. Shilling, 97 Cal.App.2d 641, 218 P.2d 583, 589 (1950)). In fact, the defendant cannot even inquire into the issue of plaintiffs receipt of income from collateral sources. See Moses v. Union Pac. R.R., 64 F.3d 413, 416 (8th Cir.1995). An exception exists, however, when the plaintiff “opens the door” to such testimony. See Younts v. Baldor Elec. Co. Inc., 310 Ark. 86, 832 S.W.2d 832, 834 (1992). It has been often stated that “[w]hen a party testifies about his or her financial condition in a false or misleading manner, ... he or she opens the door for the introduction of evidence which might otherwise be inadmissible under the collateral source rule.” See id. (citing Peters v. Pierce, 308 Ark. 60, 823 S.W.2d 820 (1992); York v. Young, 271 Ark. 266, 608 S.W.2d 20 (1980)).
[¶38.] In Younts, Younts brought a products liability action against Baldor Electric Company because a defective motor in an exercise machine caused a fire that substantially damaged Younts tanning salon and exercise facility. 832 S.W.2d at 833. During direct examination, Younts’ counsel asked him whether “he had been able to reopen his business after the fire.” Id. at 834. Younts responded that he “[has]n’t been able to afford it.” Id. Defense counsel argued that Younts opened the door for him to show that Younts had received a $41,500 insurance settlement. The trial court found that Younts had “opened the door” and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed. Id. The court noted,
[i]t is important to recognize that Younts’ testimony came when he was being questioned by his own counsel. The question asked was whether he had rebuilt the physical facilities of his business. The question was wholly irrelevant to any question in the case other *445than possibly that of mitigation of damages which does not appear to have been at issue.... The important point is that Younts’ response that he could not afford to rebuild could very well have been misleading to the jury.
Id.
[¶ 39.] In Peters, the driver of a truck brought an action against the driver of a vehicle which allegedly rear-ended his pickup truck. 823 S.W.2d at 820. The defendant, Pierce, was asked by his own counsel on direct- examination “how long he had been retired.” Id. Pierce responded that “[r]etired May 1st of 1988. And-now, whatever I have, if it is taken away from me, I can’t replace. I’m too old. I don’t work anymore. I do occasionally part time, but not on a regular basis.” Id. at 820-21. Peters had offered proof that he had incurred medical bills of $5,000 and loss of wages between $126,000 and $135,-000, but a jury awarded him only $6,000. Id. at 820. Peters argued that he should be allowed to offer evidence that Pierce had received $50,000 in liability insurance because Peters had opened the door to such testimony. The Arkansas Supreme Court determined that Pierce did' in fact “open the door.” The court noted in its decision,
[Pierce] injected his limited personal resources into issue, casting doubt before the jury that he could afford or' financially survive a judgment against him. By doing so, he portrayed a false, or at least a misleading picture, that he alone would absorb any loss or judgment, and under these limited and special circumstances, [Peters] had the right to answer [Pierce’s] portrayal by giving the jury the full and complete picture.
Id. at 822.
[¶ 40.] In Washington v. Barnes Hosp., 897 S.W.2d 611, 619-21 (Mo.1995), the court was faced with, among other issues, whether the mitigating evidence of the availability of a free public schooling program that Washington qualified for should have been admitted. The court found that such evidence should not have been excluded by the trial court. Id. at 621. One of the court’s justification for such a ruling was based upon the fact that Washington “opened the door to'this issue by injecting testimony of Ms. Washington’s financial condition into the case.” Id. The court noted that “ ‘[w]hether the plaintiff injects his financial condition through inadvertence or purposefully, it is the raising of plaintiffs financial condition with the jury that permits the opposing party to attack his claims of financial distress by showing that other financial assistance was' available.’ ” Id. (quoting Moore v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 825 S.W.2d 839, 843 (Mo. 1992)).
[¶ 41.] In the present case, a review of the record reflects the following testimony from Jurgensen on direct examination:
Q. Tell us a little bit abodt your move to Brookings. Did you have to sell any of your property in order to survive and try to make this transition?
A. Yeah, we sold the house, my boat, all kinds of fishing equipment, basically everything we knew we wouldn’t have room for.
[[Image here]]
Q. And how are you and your wife surviving economically?
A. Barely I guess would be the best description.
[[Image here]]
Q. Did you have to cash in or liquidate your pension plan that you had accumulated over the years as an electrician?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And why did you' have to do that?
A. We needed the money.
The record reflects that Jurgensen also testified that he had “debts that are to the limits” and that in regards to his earnings, he went from making $40,000 per year to *446basically making nothing. After hearing Jurgensen’s testimony, Smith made an offer of proof that established that Jurgen-sen received $82,453 in income in 1997; $17,628 originated from benefits from his local electric workers union. Jurgensen also received a substantially similar amount in 1998. Further, Jurgensen received a subsidy for his apartment rent and some of his college tuition and expenses were paid for through state programs. Smith argues that Jurgensen opened the door and he should have been allowed to present evidence that Jurgen-sen received income from collateral sources to prevent the jury from being mislead.
[¶ 42.] This is a case where Smith admitted liability and the only issue for the jury to decide was the amount of damages sustained by Jurgensen. Under the trial court’s instruction number thirteen, the elements of damages for the jury to consider were set forth.2 Reading this instruction clearly discloses that an element of damages is not proving whether or not one sold their house, whether or not one liquidated personal property, whether or not one liquidated a pension plan, whether or not someone tried to make ends meet, survive or is suffering financially. The only elements to be proven are injury, disability, pain and suffering, medical bills, lost income and future loss of income. When counsel argues that his client has been fighting for three years to make ends meet, but is not looking for sympathy, what else would they be looking for when “fighting for three years to make ends meet” is not an element of the jury instruction on damages.
[¶ 43.] The majority states that the reasoning behind the collateral source rule is to eliminate “the danger that the jury may be inclined to ... reduce [the plaintiffs] damage award, when it learns that the plaintiffs loss is entirely or partially covered.” See Moses, 64 F.3d at 416. But this rule should not provide a shield for the introduction of evidence which has nothing to do with the determination of the damages amount. There is no question that Jurgensen is entitled to recover damages. On the other hand, there is also no dispute under our settled law that both parties are entitled to a fair trial. See, e.g., Black v. Class, 1997 SD 22, ¶ 24, 560 N.W.2d 544, 550 (noting that while a party *447is not entitled to a perfect trial, they are entitled to a fair trial).
[¶ 44.] We have previously held that “[t]rials are a search for the truth as determined by the jury based upon all the evidence.” Tunender v. Minnaert, 1997 SD 62, ¶ 28, 563 N.W.2d 849, 855. If the truth that Jurgensen was trying to show the jury that he was living in poverty, then Smith should have been allowed to challenge that claim, notwithstanding the collateral source rule. In other words, based upon this record, Jurgensen has opened the door and Smith should be allowed to come in and challenge evidence which has a potential, if not strong possibility, of inciting the jury. This Court should not allow the collateral source rule to place blinders on its consideration of the case. It should also be noted that this is not a case involving a liability insurer’s bad faith failure to pay, nor is it an action against said insurer to recover punitive damages as a result of the insurer’s bad faith refusal to pay. Why else would this evidence have been added in this case other than to influence the jury’s damages award. I would reverse and remand and if at retrial, the same poverty evidence is offered by the plaintiff, then Smith should be allowed to provide a complete and fair picture of plaintiffs actual financial condition during this time, rather than allow the collateral source rule to leave the jury in the dark.
[¶ 45.] GILBERTSON, Justice, joins this dissent.
. Jury Instruction number thirteen provided:
Your award of actual damages must be in an amount which will reasonably and fairly compensate Mike Jurgensen for all injuries or losses caused by Ms Smith, whether the loss or harm could have been anticipated or not, namely;
1) The nature, extent, and duration of Mike Jurgensen's injury.
2) The disfigurement and disability of Mike Jurgensen.
3) The pain and suffering mental anguish and loss of capacity of the enjoyment of life experienced in the past and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future as a result of the injury.
4) The reasonable expense of necessary medical care, treatment, and services received as a result of the January 23, 1996 accident;
5) The time Mike Jurgensen has lost for employment since the injury because he was unable to pursue his occupation or other income-producing activities. In determining this amount, you should consider evidence of Mike Jurgensen’s earning capacity, past, earnings, and the manner in which he ordinarily occupied his time before the injury and find that Mike Jurgensen was reasonably certain to have earned in the time lost had he not been disabled.
6)The loss of future earning capacity of Mike Jurgensen because of his not being able to pursue his occupation or other income-producing activities. The factors to be considered in determining the measure of damages for loss of earning capacity included what Mike Jurgensen earned before the injury and what he is capable of earning after the injury, his prior ability and the extent to which his injuries affect his power to earn, his age, his life expectancy, his physical condition, his occupation, his skill and habits of industry.
Whether any of these elements of damages have been proved by the evidence is for you to determine. Your decision must be based on evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork, or conjecture.