HomeMy WebLinkAbout0477 , ,
into evidence.l Therefore, the taxing of the costs of hospital
records against Appellants was error. That part of the order
assessing this cost is-reversed.
EXPERT WITNESS FEE FOR DEPOSITION
Prior to trial, Appellees took the deposition of Dr.
J. Hunter Smith, a medical expert. Dr. Smith did not appear
personally at the trial but his deposition was read to the jury.
Appellants contend that the taxation of Dr, Smith's expert
•witness fee for the deposition is improper since he was not a
witness at trial.
The case cited by Appellants in their brief is not_on
point. It holds that fees for a witness who has not attended court
to testiff cannot be taxed as costs. Cohn v. Florida National
Bank at Orlando, supra. The'opinion clearly refers to fees for
appearance at trial, not for deposition.
t~e find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in taxing
' • ~ t- t--- ' = ' ~?.......1 t -...a.+~ -
~ Ur. .7IRi1~11 b CJi1JGi l~ WiL11Gaa ~ iCC 1VL 4C~JV~11~1Via Rijcaiiav.. ~at.~ iiu•a....
since the deposition clearly fulfilled a.useful pur.pose when
~ ~
i it was read at trial in place of Dr. Smith's live testir.iony.
~ That part of the order assessing his fee against Appellants is
affirmed. ~
EXPERT ~V~ITNESSES' F~ES FOR TESTIliONY
AT TRIAL ~
Appellants contend that sor.~e of the amounts taxed as
costs for expert witnesses' fees for testimony at trial are so
excessive as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Appellants
particularly attack.the fee of a Tampa physician who charged
~ a total of $2,700.00 for services rendered: $350.00 for his
~ initial examination of,.~he injured Plaintiff in Tampa, $200.00
.
for his deposition, and $2,150.00 for his trial testimony.
;
~ - ;
l. A medical witness testified at the trial: "I had certain
records, hospital records, made available to me at the time
I examined Mr. Browning, in relatian to prior treatment that he
had had in relation to his comolaints." (T. Vol. II, p. 109). ~
• 3. 0 R 2~g FACE
~ ~ BOGK
-
_
- ~ _ - - - - _
. ~ : . . . _ r=-- , ~
. - ^ > < _ . _