WILFREDO ORTIZ, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANT,
v.
SUNTRUST, F/K/A SUNBANK, N.A., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Wilfredo Ortiz and his parents appealed an order awarding costs and attorney fees to SunTrust following summary judgment in a personal injury suit arising from a child's injury caused by a vertical blind cord. The court affirmed the awards generally but reversed and remanded regarding expert witness costs to determine which portions were taxable under the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs.
The court affirmed the awards in part but reversed and remanded regarding expert witness costs. The court held that while expert evaluation costs may be taxable if necessary for the motion for summary judgment or trial preparation, the record did not clearly distinguish between non-taxable costs for reports and attorney conferences versus taxable costs for examination, inspection, or research.
[1] Costs for expert witness reports submitted to or conferences with an attorney prior to trial are not taxable.
[2] Charges made by expert witnesses for examinations, inspections, or research prior to trial for the purpose of enabling the witness to express expert opinions may be consi…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It appears these evaluations were necessary either for the motion for summary judgment or to enable SunTrust to prepare for trial. Thus the awards per se are not an abuse of discretion.”
The court's analysis that expert witness costs are generally proper when connected to summary judgment or trial preparation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilfredo Ortiz, a young child, suffered serious injury after becoming entangled in a vertical blind cord in his parents' apartment. Ortiz and his pare…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Expert Witness Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Wilfredo Ortiz and his parents, Felix Ortiz and Lillian Rivera, appeal from an order and final judgment awarding costs and attorney fees to SunTrust, one of the defendants below in a personal injury suit. The lower court previously entered summary judgment in favor of SunTrust and this court affirmed. Ortiz v. Suntrust, 701 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
We find no error in the awards made below except with regard to costs for case evaluations prepared by three expert witnesses: Dr. Thomas Hegert (a medical examiner); Dr. Jane Mattson (a pediatric life care planner); and William Charvat (an architect and building design expert). The cause of action concerned the serious injury to a young child caused by the child becoming entangled in a vertical blind cord in his parents’ apartment. SunTrust also referred to Charvat’s deposition testimony in its motion for summary judgment.
It appears these evaluations were necessary either for the motion for summary judgment or to enable SunTrust to prepare for trial. Thus the awards per se are not an abuse of discretion. See Orlando Regional Medical Center v. Chmielew-sk% 573 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 583 So. 2d 1034, 1036 (Fla. 1991).
However, the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Cases provide:
2. Expert Witnesses
A. Charges made by the expert for examinations or inspections or research prior to trial for purpose of enabling witness to express expert opinions. Such charges should be considered by the Court in setting a reasonable fee, especially in such cases as Eminent Domain where the expert must thoroughly inspect the property, check comparable sales, etc. The Court should consider the nature of the expert testimony; whether or not the expert witness was really needed; the entire facts and circumstances or the case; and then award such monetary sum for preparation as the facts of the case warrant.
B. Charges made by expert witnesses for reports submitted to or conferences with attorney prior to trial. Such charges or costs should not be taxed.
It is not clear from the record what, if any, part of the costs taxed for these three experts in relates to charges made for reports, which are not taxable, or relates to inspection or research for the purpose of enabling the witness to express an expert opinion, which are taxable under the guidelines. See also James P. Driscoll, Inc. v. Gould, 521 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court to determine what portion of the costs or fees charged in this case represents taxable costs under the guidelines.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
DAUKSCH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James G. DOW & Nancy Dow v. McKINLEY, 776 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…Dows. The written appraisal, however, was not submitted into evidence at trial. Charges for reports like this are not taxable, thus this cost should not have been awarded and the trial court abused its discretion in doing so. See Ortiz v. SunTrust, 734 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(citing Statewide Uniform Guidelines For Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions, court points out that costs for reports are not taxable). McKinley’s last affidavit as to his costs includes a $30 recording fee. During the hearing on t…
Authorities Cited
- Orlando Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Boleslaus J. Chmielewski, 573 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- James P. Driscoll, Inc. v. Gould, 521 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Wilfredo Ortiz v. Suntrust, 701 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)