 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pollock v. Castle12/17/1998
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: DECEMBER 17, 1998
JUDGMENT: Affirmed in part and Reversed in part.
Appellant Jeanne Pollack appeals a decision by the trial court denying her prejudgment interest and $897 for videotaped transcript costs. The jury awarded appellant $18,050 in her personal injury action. Appellee Joseph Castle prior to the jury trial had offered $1,000 to settle the matter after discovery. Appellant assigns the following errors for our review:
I. THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT AWARDING PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST TO PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT AFTER THE DEFENDANT OFFERED $1,000.00 PRIOR TO TRIAL AND A JURY VERDICT WAS RENDERED IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,050.00.
II. THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT AWARDING PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT THE COSTS OF VIDEOTAPE RECORDING AND PLAYBACK FOR TRIAL DEPOSITIONS AFTER PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT PREVAILED AT TRIAL.
In compliance with App.R. 11.1, our decision will be in brief, conclusory form. Consequently, our opinion will not contain a comprehensive exposition of our reasons for affirming the trial court's decision denying prejudgment interest and reversing its decision denying $897 videotaped transcript cost. Accordingly, we modify the denial of costs and enter judgment for the appellant as to the $897 in costs.
Appellant's first assigned error lacks merit. Prejudgment interest is discretionary. Avondet v. Blankstein (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 357, 370. Accordingly, the trial court's denial of prejudgment interest must be unreasonable before we will interfere with its discretion.
Here, the appellee consistently disputed liability. After discovery, the appellant's special damages were valued at $3,088.73. Thereafter, appellant demanded $125,000 to settle the case and later Pollock reduced her demand to $50,000 before trial. Castle made a counter-offer of $1,000. Appellee consistently maintained that appellant's injuries were pre-existing to the accident. Therefore, we conclude, although a minimum amount was offered, based on this record, the trial court acted reasonably in denying prejudgment interest.
However, the trial court acted unreasonably in not awarding costs. Sup.R. 13(D)(2) states that the recording and playing of videotape depositions shall be allocated as costs and Civ.R. 54(D) grants it authority to order the costs paid to the prevailing party. Thus, appellant's assigned error two has merit.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and judgment is entered for appellant as the $897 cost.
It is ordered that appellee and appellant share the costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, JUDGE
LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE
|