The existence of such benefits raises the question whether they should go in reduction of tort damages or be ignored as res inter alios acta, i.e. none of the defendant's business. 
The first alternative is based on the argument that damages are compensatory and should not exceed the plaintiff's net loss. 
Especially benefits from public funds are intended to fill needs, not to enrich the beneficiary, all the more so when the defendant would have contributed to the fund as much as the plaintiff and therefore cannot be accused of <tag "515647">deriving</> an unfair advantage from it.   

