 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Coleman v. Stevens12/15/2000
easonable and necessary expenses for the defense of the case and therefore allowable.
As a result, we are unable to determine whether the trial court exceeded the permitted range of discretion in awarding the amounts spent on deposition fees as costs. We remand this issue to the trial court with instructions to provide adequate supporting findings as to how the depositions were essential for the development and presentation of Dr. Stevens' case, or for revision of the award of costs consistent with this opinion.
Second, we reverse the award of expert witness fees. As we explained in Young, this court distinguished taxable "costs" from other "expenses" of litigation in Frampton. See Young, 2000 UT 91 at 15. As a result, some expenses of litigation are not properly taxable as costs. Expert witness fees beyond the statutory fee for appearance are expenses of litigation and not taxable as costs. See Young, 2000 UT 91 at 16, 18. We therefore conclude that the trial court exceeded the permitted range of discretion in awarding Dr. Stevens his costs for expert witness fees.
Finally, we reverse the award of costs for trial exhibits. Trial exhibits are expenses of litigation and not taxable as costs. Young, 2000 UT 91 at 22; Frampton, 605 P.2d at 774. We therefore conclude that the trial court exceeded the permitted range of discretion in awarding these expenses to Dr. Stevens.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above, we address only whether the trial court exceeded the permitted range of discretion in awarding deposition fees, expert witness fees, and the costs of exhibits to Dr. Stevens as taxable costs. We reverse the awards of expert witness fees and exhibit expenses and remand the award of deposition fees for supporting findings or for revision of the award consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Chief Justice Howe, Associate Chief Justice Russon, Justice Durham, and Justice Durrant concur in Justice Wilkins' opinion.
|