Does the collateral source rule apply to a tortfeasor such as a public body?

7 Helfend v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1, 84 Cal.Rptr. 173, 465 P.2d 61, also lays the ghost of an argument advanced by the plaintiff in the lower court by analogy to an exception to the collateral source rule which was expounded in City of Salinas v. Souza & McCue Constr. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 217, 57 Cal.Rptr. 337, 424 P.2d 921. In the latter case, the court intimated that to deny a public entity credit for indemnity owed and paid to a claimant by another would in effect subject the public entity to punitive damages. (See 66 Cal.2d at pp. 226--228.) In Helfend the court concluded, 'We . . . reaffirm our adherence to the collateral source rule in tort cases in which the plaintiff has been compensated by an independent collateral source--such as insurance, pension, continued wages, or disability payments--for which he had actually or constructively . . . paid or in cases in which the collateral source would be recompensed from the tort recovery through subrogation, refund of benefits, or some other arrangement. . . . ( ) Having concluded that the collateral source rule is not simply punitive in nature, we hold, for the reasons set out Infra, that the rule as delineated here applied to governmental entities as well as to all other tortfeasors. We must therefore disapprove of any indications to the contrary in City of Salinas v. Souza & McCue Constr. Co., supra, 66 Cal.2d 217, 226--228, 57 Cal.Rptr. 337, 424 P.2d 921.' (2 Cal.3d at pp. 13--14, 84 Cal.Rptr. at p. 181, 465 P.2d at p. 69.)