Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Collateral

Collateral is an asset or property pledged by a borrower to a lender as security for a loan or other debt obligation, enabling the lender to seize and liquidate it to recover losses in the event of default. The term originates from Medieval Latin collateralis, meaning "side by side" or "accompanying," reflecting its role as a parallel guarantee to the primary repayment promise. In financial contexts, collateral reduces lender risk by providing recourse beyond the borrower's personal liability, commonly including tangible assets like real estate or vehicles and intangible ones such as securities or accounts receivable. Its evaluation involves assessing market value, liquidity, and volatility to determine loan-to-value ratios, with over-collateralization often required for higher-risk borrowers. Legally, collateral arrangements are governed by statutes like the Uniform Commercial Code in the United States, which outline perfection of security interests through filing or possession to protect against third-party claims. Beyond finance, the concept extends to secondary consequences, such as collateral damage in military operations denoting incidental civilian harm, though this usage stems from the same etymological sense of adjacency rather than intent.

Finance and Economics

Collateral in Lending and Security

Collateral in lending consists of a tangible or pledged by a borrower to a lender to secure repayment of a . Upon borrower , the lender obtains legal to seize, possess, and sell the collateral to recoup , , and associated costs, thereby limiting potential losses. This mechanism underpins secured lending by transferring ownership or control of the asset conditionally, distinguishing it from unsecured obligations where lenders rely solely on the borrower's promise to repay. The concept originated in ancient pledge systems, with evidence of collateralized loans in around 3000 BC, where clay tablets documented asset-backed debts, and evolved through and practices like hypotheca, which allowed creditors to claim without immediate . In medieval , land and chattels served as pledges amid feudal needs, progressing to formalized security interests. Modern frameworks, such as Article 9 of the (UCC) adopted across U.S. states since the mid-20th century, standardize the creation, perfection, and enforcement of security interests in , facilitating efficient collateral use in commercial transactions. Collateral addresses lender risks by countering —borrowers' incentives to engage in risky behavior post-funding—through the credible threat of , which aligns borrower actions with repayment discipline. Empirical studies confirm this effect, showing pledged assets reduce ex-post default incentives and enable higher rates upon , with secured loans yielding recoveries up to twice that of unsecured ones in some datasets. Consequently, lenders extend at lower effective costs; for example, average U.S. 30-year fixed rates stood at approximately 6.3% in October 2025, compared to 12.25% for unsecured loans, reflecting the from and pledges in those respective secured products. This differential persists despite selection effects where riskier borrowers often seek secured financing, as collateral's lowers overall lender exposure and supports broader credit access.

Types and Valuation of Collateral

Collateral assets in finance are broadly classified into tangible and intangible categories based on their physical nature. Tangible collateral consists of physical assets such as , , , and , which can be directly inspected and seized upon . Intangible collateral includes non-physical assets like , , , bonds, and patents, which derive value from legal rights or financial claims rather than inherent materiality. Within these categories, collateral is further distinguished by , referring to the ease and speed of conversion to cash without significant value loss. Liquid collateral encompasses cash equivalents, marketable securities, and high-quality , which can be rapidly liquidated at near . Illiquid collateral, such as , specialized machinery, or certain , often requires extended sale periods and may incur discounts due to limited buyer pools or market conditions. Valuation of collateral typically involves professional appraisals conducted by certified appraisers adhering to established standards, such as the International Valuation Standards (IVS) promulgated by the International Valuation Standards Council. Common methods include the market approach, which uses comparable sales data for similar assets; the income approach, applying (DCF) analysis to project future earnings from income-generating assets like rental properties or businesses; and the cost approach, estimating minus for tangible items. Lenders often apply conservative "haircuts" to appraised values to account for risks, ensuring the collateral covers the amount under stressed scenarios. Empirical challenges in valuation arise from factors like asset , economic cycles, and market volatility, which can erode pledged values. During the , haircuts on mortgage-backed securities—pooled intangible collateral—surged, with spreads exceeding 40 percentage points for subprime assets, effectively reducing their realizable value and amplifying liquidity strains in repo markets. To safeguard lender priority, perfection of security interests in collateral under U.S. requires filing a with the appropriate state office, providing public notice and establishing chronological priority among creditors.

Risks, Defaults, and Recent Developments

In the event of borrower default on secured loans, lenders typically seize and liquidate collateral to recover principal and interest, though timelines and outcomes vary by asset type and jurisdiction. For U.S. commercial and industrial loans, recovery rates average approximately 82%, reflecting the value extracted from pledged assets post-default. Foreclosure processes for real estate collateral, a common form, often extend beyond two years nationally, with properties in Q3 2025 averaging 608 days from initiation to completion, influenced by judicial requirements in many states. These delays arise from legal notifications, redemption periods, and auctions, exacerbating holding costs for lenders and reducing net recoveries amid market fluctuations. Key risks in collateral arrangements include overvaluation during credit expansions, which can lead to undercollateralization upon asset price corrections, as evidenced in the 2007-2008 where housing price declines rendered many loans insufficiently secured, amplifying defaults and losses. Liquidity mismatches pose another hazard, particularly in short-term repo markets where collateral must be rapidly rehypothecated; mismatches between asset maturities and funding needs contributed to fire-sale dynamics during stress events. Empirical data from failed banks indicate higher loss-given-default (LGD) rates—up to 95% in severe cases—for loans with volatile or illiquid collateral, underscoring the causal link between asset quality and systemic exposure. Recent innovations have extended collateral to cryptocurrencies, introducing both opportunities and heightened volatility risks. announced in October 2025 plans to permit institutional clients to pledge and as collateral for loans by year-end, utilizing third-party custody to mitigate custody risks and potentially unlocking billions in idle crypto holdings for lending. Such assets demand substantial haircuts—often 50% or more of market value—due to price swings exceeding 50% annually for , contrasting with the relative stability of traditional securities and elevating liquidation risks in (DeFi) protocols. In DeFi lending, overcollateralization ratios (typically 150-200%) aim to buffer , yet empirical analyses reveal fragility, with rapid price drops triggering mass liquidations and higher default probabilities than centralized systems. Regulatory efforts to integrate tokenized collateral into derivatives markets advanced in 2025, with the U.S. (CFTC) launching a initiative soliciting feedback on using tokenized assets, including stablecoins, for margin posting to enhance efficiency and reduce times. Public comments closed in 2025, focusing on operational viability and risk controls, though critics note persistent challenges from interoperability and dependencies that could amplify systemic risks in cleared trades. These developments signal a shift toward digitized collateral, balancing against empirical evidence of crypto's procyclical , which has historically outpaced traditional assets in drawdowns.

Law and Legal Contexts

Collateral as Security Interest

In secured transactions under law, a in collateral attaches to the property when it becomes enforceable against the , which requires three elements: the secured must give in exchange for the , the must have rights in the collateral, and the must authenticate a security agreement that provides a description of the collateral. This attachment grants the secured rights to the collateral and its identifiable proceeds, but attachment alone does not protect against competing claims from third parties. Perfection of the occurs through methods such as filing a financing statement with the appropriate public office, typically under UCC §9-310, which establishes and priority over unperfected interests or subsequent claimants. For certain collateral like consumer goods or certificated securities, may attach automatically or via or control, but filing remains the primary mechanism for most to achieve priority. Upon the debtor's , the secured party may enforce its interest by taking of the collateral under UCC §9-609, either through judicial process or, without court intervention, provided the repossession occurs without breaching the peace—meaning no violence, threat of force, or unauthorized entry into locked premises. Following , the secured party can dispose of the collateral via public or private sale, or retain it in satisfaction of the debt if the debtor consents or certain conditions are met under §9-620, with proceeds applied first to expenses, then the secured , and any surplus to the . Judicial foreclosure remains an option for complex cases or collateral integrated under Article 9. Priority among conflicting security interests generally follows the first-to-file-or-perfect rule in UCC §9-322, where the secured party that first files a financing statement or perfects its interest prevails, dating priority from the earlier event. An exception applies to purchase-money security interests (PMSIs), defined in §9-103 as those enabling the to acquire rights in the collateral; a perfected PMSI in non-inventory goods holds superpriority over prior interests if perfected within 20 days of the receiving . In cross-border secured transactions, UCC Article 9's choice-of-law rules determine the governing , primarily the of the debtor's location for attachment, , and under §9-301, overriding party-selected for these external aspects to ensure uniformity. Conflicts arise in finance where choice-of-law clauses may specify foreign for contract validity but yield to the debtor's situs for , potentially complicating across borders without under frameworks like the Convention for specific assets.

Collateral Consequences of Convictions

Collateral consequences of criminal convictions refer to automatic civil sanctions imposed upon individuals following a or , extending beyond direct penal measures such as or fines. These include disenfranchisement, barring from certain professions, ineligibility for public benefits, and restrictions on and . In the United States, felony disenfranchisement laws affected approximately 5.2 million people as of 2020 estimates, with variations by state; for instance, permanent bans in states like and contribute significantly to this figure despite restoration efforts post-sentence completion. restrictions, mandated by under 42 U.S.C. § 13661, prohibit individuals with lifetime registrations or certain drug convictions from residing in , often extending to private rentals via informed by checks. Professional licensing losses affect fields like , , and , where state boards revoke or deny credentials based on type, irrespective of evidence. Empirical data reveal substantial barriers for ex-offenders, with rates nearly five times higher than the general —around 27% versus 5% in recent analyses—attributable in part to and statutory exclusions. (BJS) reports indicate that 83% of state prisoners are rearrested within nine years of release, with as a key ; however, causal analyses suggest that collateral consequences, by amplifying and economic costs, enhance general deterrence against rather than solely hindering reintegration. Studies modeling 's role find it functions akin to fines in raising perceived offending costs without resource-intensive enforcement, potentially lowering overall crime rates, while reforms diluting —such as —correlate with diluted deterrent effects in theoretical and observational models. This challenges narratives prioritizing barrier removal without accounting for accountability mechanisms, as state-level data show jurisdictions with robust consequences exhibiting patterns consistent with stronger sanction perceptions. Reform efforts include Pennsylvania's 2018 Clean Slate law, which automated sealing of non-conviction and certain records after 10 years without reoffense, clearing nearly 35 million records by 2020 to ease access. Subsequent expansions in 2023 incorporated low-level felonies, yet evaluations highlight mixed outcomes, with BJS data underscoring that laxer systems do not empirically reduce reoffense rates below national averages of 67% rearrest within three years. Debates contrast conservative viewpoints emphasizing sustained consequences for public safety and moral accountability—supported by deterrence models linking to lower offending incentives—with for broad elimination to promote equity, though the latter often lacks causal evidence tying reforms to sustained crime reductions amid persistent trends. Prioritizing outcomes, analyses indicate that while targeted relief (e.g., certificates for relief from disabilities) can mitigate undue barriers without undermining deterrence, wholesale removal risks eroding the social costs that empirically curb repeat offenses.

Doctrines like Collateral Estoppel

, also known as issue preclusion, is a doctrine that bars the relitigation of specific issues of fact or law that were fully litigated and necessarily decided in a prior action between the same parties or their privies. The doctrine promotes judicial efficiency and finality by conserving resources and preventing inconsistent verdicts on identical issues. For collateral estoppel to apply, four core elements must be satisfied: (1) a final judgment on the merits in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue in the subsequent action is identical to one involved in the prior case; (3) the issue was actually litigated in the prior case; and (4) the determination of the issue was essential to the judgment. Distinct from collateral estoppel, res judicata—often termed claim preclusion—prevents parties from relitigating an entire claim that has already been adjudicated on the merits, including any issues that could have been raised, provided the parties or their privies are the same and the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence. While res judicata bars subsequent suits on the same cause of action in toto, collateral estoppel operates more narrowly to preclude only particular issues already resolved, even if embedded in different claims. Both doctrines stem from the principle of repose but differ in scope: res judicata extinguishes all grounds for recovery under the original claim, whereas collateral estoppel targets discrete factual or legal determinations. Historically, required mutuality, meaning both parties in the second action had to have been bound by the prior judgment, limiting its use to identical adversaries. This mutuality rule evolved in the mid-20th century, with courts increasingly abandoning it to enhance , particularly in defensive contexts where a seeks to preclude a from relitigating an issue the lost previously. The U.S. advanced this shift in Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979), approving offensive non-mutual —where a uses a prior judgment against a who litigated but lost—absent unfairness, such as if the could have easily joined the earlier suit or if the lacked incentive to litigate vigorously. However, in United States v. Mendoza (1984), the Court limited offensive non-mutual against the government, citing institutional needs for consistent policy application across varied lawsuits, even if a different party prevailed on the issue earlier. These doctrines apply across civil and criminal contexts, though with procedural safeguards. In civil suits, they prevent redundant trials, as seen in securities litigation where prior findings estop defendants from disputing materiality. In criminal cases, analogs protect against relitigating acquitted issues in related civil forfeitures or subsequent prosecutions, echoing principles under the Fifth Amendment, but offensive use against defendants remains rare due to concerns over jury rights and incentives. State laws continue to refine mutuality requirements, with many s now permitting non-mutual application defensively while imposing fairness tests for offensive use, balancing finality against potential inequities from uneven litigation burdens. Limitations persist where the prior forum lacked , the was not fully contested, or demands relitigation, ensuring the doctrines serve truth without rigid overapplication.

Military and Warfare

Definition of Collateral Damage

Collateral damage denotes the unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not otherwise be lawful targets under the prevailing circumstances of an engagement. This doctrinal term, formalized in U.S. publications such as Joint Publication 1-02, emphasizes effects secondary to strikes on legitimate objectives, where the primary intent remains the degradation of enemy capabilities rather than harm to non-combatants. The concept is distinct from war crimes or atrocities, which involve deliberate targeting of protected persons or objects in violation of international humanitarian law. Under rules of engagement, collateral damage is permissible only if it adheres to the proportionality principle, codified in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting attacks anticipated to cause incidental civilian losses, injuries, or damage excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected. This framework requires commanders to weigh anticipated harm against operational necessity, incorporating factors like weapon precision and target location to minimize foreseeable secondary effects. Such damage commonly emerges from inherent uncertainties in , including incomplete (the "fog of war") and the tactical challenges of dense urban environments where civilians intermingle with combatants, complicating discrimination between targets. Adopted as a precise in the late , the term facilitates objective assessment of operations without implying to intentional violations.

Historical Origins and Military Doctrine

The concept of collateral damage in military operations traces its practical origins to the strategic area bombing campaigns of , where indiscriminate aerial attacks on urban centers frequently resulted in high civilian casualties alongside intended military targets. For instance, the Allied from February 13–15, 1945, destroyed much of the city and caused an estimated 22,700–25,000 civilian deaths, primarily from firestorms ignited by incendiary bombs, illustrating the era's acceptance of widespread incidental harm as a byproduct of tactics aimed at breaking enemy morale and infrastructure. Such operations prioritized volume over precision, with doctrines like the British RAF's emphasis on "dehousing" workers reflecting a causal acceptance that civilian losses were inevitable for achieving broader strategic effects against industrialized adversaries. The euphemistic term "" emerged in the mid-20th century, gaining prominence during the (1955–1975) as U.S. forces grappled with public backlash against visible civilian tolls from tactics such as free-fire zones and aerial defoliation, which formalized the distinction between intended strikes and unintended side effects. This period marked an initial doctrinal shift toward estimating and justifying incidental harm, driven by media scrutiny and anti-war sentiment, though implementation remained inconsistent amid challenges where distinguishing combatants from civilians proved difficult. By the 1990s, U.S. integrated systematic tools for minimization, exemplified by the Air Force's Estimation (CDE) methodology, which uses modeling to predict civilian risks and inform targeting decisions under (ROE). The 1991 demonstrated this evolution, with coalition forces employing early precision-guided munitions (PGMs) in about 8–9% of strikes, contributing to relatively low estimated civilian deaths—around 2,500–3,500 from air campaigns—compared to prior conflicts, as PGMs enabled strikes on military assets with reduced dispersion of effects. In response to asymmetric threats, where adversaries embed among populations, ROE have since incorporated CDE thresholds to balance , prohibiting attacks exceeding acceptable collateral levels and prioritizing alternatives like time-sensitive targeting to exploit for precision. This doctrinal progression reflects a causal emphasis on technological mitigation to sustain operational legitimacy amid urban and .

Empirical Data on Incidents and Mitigation Efforts

In U.S.-led operations in and from 2001 to 2021, audits of coalition airstrikes indicated civilian casualties comprised approximately 10-20% of total deaths attributable to those strikes, a marked reduction from the 50-60% civilian share observed in conventional wars such as , where area bombing campaigns dominated. This lower ratio stems from empirical assessments by organizations tracking strike outcomes, including Airwars' analysis of over 90,000 reported events, which estimated a minimum of 22,000 civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes across multiple theaters but noted precision targeting limited broader incidental harm compared to unguided munitions in prior conflicts. In Yemen's campaigns during the 2010s, U.S. audits reported combatant-to-civilian kill ratios exceeding 90% in targeted operations, corroborated by datasets from the New America Foundation tracking over 150 strikes with fewer than 10% fatalities on average. The U.S. Department of Defense's Estimation (CDE) methodology, outlined in Joint Publication 3-60, provides a standardized pre-strike process to model potential exposure using variables like effects radii, , and , enabling commanders to adjust tactics or abort if thresholds exceed limits under . This tool has been integrated into targeting workflows since the early 2000s, with post-strike validations refining models based on battle damage assessments. extends to non-kinetic alternatives, such as disruptions or psychological operations, prioritized in directives when they achieve effects without physical collateral, as evidenced in operations avoiding populated areas in contexts. Technological advancements have causally contributed to declining collateral ratios, with precision-guided munitions like the (JDAM) achieving (CEP) accuracies of 5-13 meters under GPS guidance, far surpassing the kilometers-wide errors of unguided bombs in . Annual reports on civilian casualties, such as the 2021 assessment attributing only 12 deaths to U.S. strikes amid thousands of combatant engagements, reflect these trends, countering claims of indiscriminate through verifiable improvements in and real-time intelligence.

Debates, Criticisms, and Viewpoints

Critics, including linguist Noam Chomsky, have argued that the term "collateral damage" serves as a euphemism that sanitizes civilian deaths during military operations, particularly in the Iraq War, by framing unintended casualties as an inevitable byproduct rather than a consequence of policy choices. Chomsky contended in 2011 that such language, akin to older wartime platitudes, obscures the human cost and enables public acceptance of operations where civilian harm is foreseeable but not primary. Defenders counter that modern precision-guided munitions have empirically reduced civilian-to-combatant death ratios compared to historical conflicts, where World War II saw approximately 45 million civilian deaths against 15 million combatants, yielding ratios far exceeding those in post-1990 urban battles. In Iraq and Syria campaigns against ISIS, independent monitoring by Airwars documented at least 8,168 civilian deaths from U.S.-led coalition actions through cross-verified local reports, with coalition admissions covering a subset after audits revealed initial underreporting of up to 93% in early phases, though subsequent transparency improved without evidence of systematic concealment. Efforts like leaflet drops and phone warnings in the 2017 Battle of Mosul aimed to mitigate harm, as coalition forces requested Iraqi ground support to facilitate evacuations, though Amnesty International reported violations where civilians remained trapped despite instructions. Legal accountability distinguishes intentional targeting from collateral outcomes, as seen in the 2005 Haditha incident where U.S. Marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians; investigations led to charges against seven personnel, with one convicted of dereliction of duty, underscoring prosecutions for deliberate acts absent in proportionate collateral cases. Left-leaning perspectives often emphasize collateral damage as evidence of disproportionate costs justifying withdrawal, arguing that overreliance on airpower in populated areas perpetuates cycles of resentment without strategic gains, as in calls to exit Iraq post-2003 amid rising civilian tolls. Right-leaning analyses defend it as unavoidable in existential threats, noting precision weapons minimize harm relative to alternatives; for instance, the 1945 Hiroshima bombing killed 70,000-140,000 but averted projected 250,000-1,000,000 Allied casualties and millions of Japanese deaths in a planned invasion. Realist frameworks invoke Clausewitzian friction—unpredictable factors like fog of war and urban density—to explain why zero civilian harm remains impossible in high-stakes operations, prioritizing overall military necessity over absolutist minimization.

Anatomy and Physiology

Collateral Ligaments and Joint Stability

Collateral ligaments are fibrous bands that provide medial and lateral stability to synovial joints, particularly the knee, by resisting valgus and varus stresses that could otherwise lead to excessive abduction or adduction of the articulating bones. In the knee joint, the medial collateral ligament (MCL) spans from the medial epicondyle of the femur to the medial aspect of the proximal tibia, serving as the primary restraint against valgus forces, while the lateral collateral ligament (LCL), or fibular collateral ligament, extends from the lateral epicondyle of the femur to the fibular head and counters varus forces. These structures work in concert with dynamic stabilizers like muscles and secondary ligaments to maintain joint integrity during weight-bearing activities, where the knee can experience compressive loads exceeding three times body weight in dynamic scenarios such as gait or jumping. Biomechanically, the MCL exhibits greater tensile strength and than the LCL, with failure loads for the MCL averaging approximately 36% higher in cadaveric testing, enabling it to absorb and distribute lateral-directed forces effectively before yielding. The LCL, though less robust, integrates with the posterolateral corner structures to prevent coupled rotations and translations under varus loading at 30 degrees of flexion. Injury to these s often occurs via direct or non-contact pivoting, with MCL comprising up to 42% of all injuries and isolated cases accounting for 29%, frequently alongside anterior cruciate (ACL) disruptions in 22-44% of ACL tear instances based on MRI evaluations. LCL injuries are rarer, typically resulting from high-energy varus impacts, and carry higher risks of chronic instability if the fibular head attachment is disrupted. Clinically, isolated grade I-II MCL sprains heal conservatively with bracing and progressive loading over 1-4 weeks, but grade III complete ruptures or combined injuries with tears necessitate surgical intervention, including primary repair within 7-10 days or using autografts like tendons to restore native tensile properties. LCL similarly employs autografts or allografts, often augmented for multi-ligamentous knees, with postoperative protocols emphasizing protected for 4-6 weeks followed by strengthening to achieve dynamic . Full recovery timelines for reconstructed collateral ligaments average 6-9 months, with return to pre-injury activity levels reaching 87-90% in combined /MCL cases, though persistent medial laxity occurs in up to 5-6% without augmentation. Long-term outcomes underscore the importance of anatomic restoration, as suboptimal alignment correlates with progression at 10-year follow-up in untreated high-grade injuries.

Collateral Circulation and Vascular Adaptation

Collateral circulation consists of auxiliary vascular networks that provide alternative pathways for blood flow when primary arteries are occluded, primarily through the enlargement of pre-existing arterioles and small arteries via arteriogenesis rather than capillary formation through . In the coronary vasculature, these collaterals form endogenous bypasses that perfuse ischemic myocardium distal to stenoses in (CAD), with development driven by hemodynamic forces such as increased and pressure gradients across occlusions. The maturation of collateral vessels is triggered by myocardial ischemia, which upregulates cytokines, growth factors (e.g., and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1), and inflammatory mediators, leading to endothelial activation, cell proliferation, and outward remodeling of vessel walls. This process is more pronounced in chronic occlusions, where sustained hypoperfusion allows time for adaptive remodeling, contrasting with acute events where recruitment of dormant collaterals provides limited immediate protection. Angiographic studies grade coronary collateral filling using the Rentrop scale: grade 0 (no visible filling), grade 1 (filling of side branches only), grade 2 (partial filling of the epicardial artery), and grade 3 (complete retrograde filling). Prevalence of well-developed (Rentrop grade 2-3) coronary collaterals varies, with angiographic data from patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes showing presence in approximately 38% of cases, though robust protective networks visible at the time of ST-elevation (STEMI) occur in about 25%. Post- () analyses indicate that 20-40% of patients exhibit collaterals that mitigate ischemia, particularly in those with prior chronic stenoses allowing pre-event adaptation. Clinically, robust collaterals reduce infarct size by preserving myocardial viability during , with studies demonstrating smaller defects and lower left ventricular dysfunction in patients with total occlusions compared to acute ones lacking pre-formed networks. In STEMI cohorts, presence of grade 2-3 collaterals correlates with decreased all-cause mortality and improved reperfusion outcomes, as they supply oxygen to the area at risk prior to intervention. Factors enhancing collateral density include regular physical exercise, which elevates and promotes arteriogenesis through release, leading to greater vessel caliber in active individuals versus sedentary controls. Conversely, impairs collateral formation by inducing and reducing vascular remodeling efficiency, resulting in poorer grades in smokers compared to non-smokers with equivalent CAD severity.

Arts, Entertainment, and Media

Films and Television

The 2004 American Collateral, directed by , centers on Max Durocher (Jamie Foxx), a taxi driver who is coerced by contract killer Vincent () into serving as his chauffeur for a series of five assassinations over one night. The film, written by , emphasizes real-time tension through its nocturnal setting, with much of the action unfolding in to capture the city's ambient light and urban grit. Produced on a $65 million budget, it grossed $101 million in the United States and Canada and $220 million worldwide. Critically, it holds an 86% approval rating on based on 238 reviews, lauded for Mann's visual style, Cruise's chilling portrayal of a methodical assassin, and the escalating psychological cat-and-mouse dynamic, though some critiques noted implausible plot conveniences in the hitman's efficiency. In television, Collateral (2018) is a four-part crime drama miniseries created by David Hare and directed by , starring as Detective Inspector Kip Glaspie. The plot follows Glaspie's investigation into the execution-style of pizza delivery driver Abdullah Asif, an undocumented Syrian , which unravels a web of drug smuggling, , and implicating politicians, , and intelligence operatives in suburban . Aired initially on in February 2018 before streaming on , the series earned a 6.8/10 rating on from over 23,000 users and a 79% critics' score on for its season, praised for its ensemble performances—particularly Mulligan's and John Simm's—and timely exploration of and institutional , but faulted by some for underdeveloped subplots and rushed resolutions across its limited episodes. No major box office metrics apply, as it was a broadcast production rather than theatrical.

Literature and Other Media

In thriller and mystery genres, the term "collateral" frequently appears in titles to evoke unintended consequences and peripheral victims of conflict or crime. Stuart Woods' Collateral Damage (2012), the 25th installment in the Stone Barrington series, follows the protagonist navigating assassination threats and ancillary harms during a weekend getaway disrupted by intelligence operations. Similarly, J.A. Jance's Collateral Damage (2023), the 17th book in the Ali Reynolds series, centers on a revenge plot intersecting with cyber investigations, highlighting fallout on bystanders through High Noon Enterprises' interventions. Lynette Eason's Collateral Damage (2020), launching the Danger Never Sleeps series, depicts former military personnel confronting personal losses amid operations that produce secondary casualties. These works employ "collateral damage" to underscore causal chains where primary objectives inadvertently endanger non-combatants or innocents, reflecting real-world risk assessments in high-stakes narratives. Sinan Antoon's The Book of Collateral Damage (2020) uses the concept more allegorically, cataloging war's diffuse wreckage through a librarian's inventory of destroyed artifacts in post-invasion , indicting systemic destruction beyond targeted strikes. In economic , "collateral" denotes assets pledged against , symbolizing leveraged stability prone to cascading failures, as modeled in analyses of financial constraints where undervalued collateral triggers and equilibria shifts. In music, "Collateral" serves as both album tracks and artist names, often connoting indirect repercussions in personal or societal strife. The British rock band , formed in 2014, released self-titled tracks exploring themes of ambition's fallout, such as in their 2020 single "Won't Stop Me Dreaming," which metaphorically addresses amid relational debris. Video games incorporate "collateral" mechanics to simulate strategic trade-offs, particularly in where attacks risk environmental or civilian harm. Games' Into the Breach (2018) exemplifies this, requiring players to maneuver mechs on grids where displacing enemies can damage buildings symbolizing population centers, forcing prioritization of minimal ancillary losses over mission success. Such designs emphasize causal foresight, mirroring doctrinal efforts to quantify and curb unintended effects in simulated warfare.