Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 13, 1994; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Robert L. Brown, Justice, addressed a tort action initiated by appellee George Tyler against appellant Elva Wood following a November 7, 1991, automobile accident in Pine Bluff, resulting in Tyler receiving a $10,000 jury award. Tyler sought to recover $2,015.95 in litigation expenses, which included various fees for pre-trial preparation, court appearances, depositions, medical records, and filing services. Wood objected to all costs except for the filing and service fees. The trial court granted Tyler's motion partially, allowing a total of $1,826.20 in costs, excluding expert witness fees and certain medical records.
On appeal, Wood contended that the trial court incorrectly assessed costs for expert witness fees and deposition reporter fees. The court agreed, referencing Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(d), which establishes that costs are typically awarded to the prevailing party unless specified by statute or court order. The court emphasized that costs, including expert witness fees, are not recoverable against the losing party unless explicitly authorized, as established by previous case law. The court clarified that Arkansas law does not provide for the recovery of expert fees and reiterated that litigation expenses not authorized by statute or rule cannot be taxed as costs against the losing party.
The court clarified that the absence of statutory authority cited in the Autrey case is not a valid argument for Wood. Rule 54(d) allows the court to "otherwise direct" payment of costs, but this only pertains to disallowing costs explicitly authorized by rule or statute, not to assessing costs outside those parameters. The court firmly rejected any claims that case law or Rule 54(d) has strayed from the principle that taxable costs must be specified by rule or statute. It noted that federal case law does not support Wood's position, as the federal rules differ and contain specific statutes for certain costs. In Arkansas, filing and subpoena service fees are authorized by statute, validating the trial court's decision to impose these costs on Wood. However, the trial court erred in allowing expert witness fees and deposition expenses, as these are not statutorily or rule-authorized. The decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part.
