 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brunt v. Stoddard12/28/2001
e expert witness fees for an expert who testifies at trial not to exceed $500 for each expert witness for all appearances. Subsection (D) of the rule provides for the payment of additional items of cost in an amount in excess of that listed in subparagraph (C) as discretionary costs, "upon a showing that the costs were necessary and exceptional costs reasonably incurred, and should in the interest of justice be assessed against the adverse party." The party opposing an award of discretionary costs bears the burden to demonstrate an abuse of the district court's discretion and, absent an abuse of discretion, the award will be upheld. Wooley Trust v. DeBest Plumbing & Byers, 133 Idaho 180, 983 P.2d 834 (1999).
The record reveals that the district court took under advisement the arguments regarding the expert witness fees. At the hearing on this issue, the court offered the following commentary:
Well, and the Rule also provided that that, in the interest of justice, should be assessed against the adverse party, the Rule always provided that. (sic)
And in this day and age of personal injury litigation, you're just not going to get a medical provider--especially the stature of, you know, Dr. Selznick--even Dr. Knoebel, which we are not talking about here because he was called by the defense.
But anyway, I'm sure his bill was quite a bit more than $500 but. . . .
At the hearing on the defense's motion to strike portions of plaintiff's affidavit in support of its cost memorandum, the district court ruled:
hese allegations, you know, the defense tactics playing hardball and all of that stuff, I'm going to grant the motion to strike all of that from your affidavit. I'm not going to consider that in ruling on this motion, because I'm not privy to the negotiations. I don't think it would be proper for me to get involved and I guess if he wants to take a position that--I mean, I'm just not going to get involved in settlement negotiations and whether it was hardball or not.
The district court granted $14,325 in expert witness fees in its order of December 9, 2000, without additional findings. We conclude that the district court's comments indicating that the costs were necessary and exceptional duly support the award as a proper exercise of the district court's discretion. We, therefore, will not disturb the award of costs.
VII. INTEREST ON OFFER OF JUDGMENT
Stoddard challenges the award of interest on the settlement offers, which the district court included in the judgment. He argues that plaintiff waived his right to recover this cost by not requesting the same pursuant to a motion under I.R.C.P. 54(d)(5).
Idaho Code ยง 12-301 authorizes the prevailing party to recover over and above the judgment annual interest on the amount contained in the settlement offer, computed from the date the offer of settlement was served:
If the court finds that such claimant has recovered an amount equal to or greater than his offer of settlement, the court shall add to the judgment, annual interest on the amount contained in such offer, computed from the date that the offer of settlement was served and shall enter judgment accordingly.
The purpose of interest awarded under the offer of settlement statute is not punitive; it exists to encourage settlement of cases prior to trial by providing incentive to accept reasonable settlement offers. Interest on the judgment in excess of the rejected settlement offer, pursuant to statute, is not an item of "costs." We conclude that the district court properly held Stoddard liable for interest on the settlement offer.
VIII. DA
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Idaho Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|