Collins v. Wilson.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAW ARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : CAROLYN S. COLLINS, and GREGORY COLLINS Plaintiffs, v. SHERRY Y. WILSON, Defen dant. C.A. No. 01C-08-239 CLS Submitted: July 29, 2003 Decided: October 31, 2003 On D efendant S herry Y. W ilson s Motion for Co sts. GRANTED in the amount of $500. MEMORANDUM OPINION Joseph W. Weik, Esquire, Weik Nitsche Dougherty & Componovo Wilmington, Delaware, Attorney fo r Plaintiffs. James J. Haley, Jr., Esquire, Ferrara Haley Bevis & Solomon, Attorney for Defen dant. SCOTT, J. 1 I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Sheree Y. Wilson ( Wilson ) has filed a Motion for Costs. Upon a review of the motion an d plaintiff s respo nse, this court co ncludes W ilson s motion should be GRANTED in the amount of $500. II. BACKGROUND On July 10, 2002, Wilson filed an offer of judgment in the amount of $3,000. On June 10, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in defendant s favor. Wilson filed a Motion fo r Costs on June 20, 20 03. Plaintiffs filed a response on June 24, 2003. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Delaware Superior Court Civil Rule 68 ( Rule 68 ) provides in part If the judgment finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer. This award of costs under Rule 68 is man datory.1 Under Rule 68, however, costs are not recover able if the p laintiff rece ives no ju dgmen t from d efendan t, i.e. judgm ent is for defe ndant. 2 Delaw are Sup erior Co urt Civil R ule 54 ( R ule 54 ) provid es that cos ts shall be allowed . . . to the prevailing party upon application to the Court within ten (10) days of the entry of final judgmen t unless the court otherwise directs. 3 The 1 Mulford v. Haas, 2001 WL 541023 at *4 (Del. Super.). Hercules, Inc. v. AIU Ins. Co., 784 A.2d 481, 509-10 (Del. 2001). 3 Super. Ct. Civ. R. 54(d). 2 2 court may, therefore, award costs to defendant under Rule 54 when, as here, defendant is the prevailing party. IV. DISCUSSION Wilson has requested reimbursement for the costs of deposing her medical expert ($3,000) and for cancellation fees ($200) when plaintiff failed to appear at two scheduled defense m edical examinations. Plaintiffs counter that Wilson s costs are not recoverable under Rule 68 because it is inapplicable when defendant prevails at trial. Alternatively, plaintiffs argue that if costs are recoverable, that the amount be reduced to no more than $250, reflecting the fact that the deposition lasted no more than a half-hour and that cancellatio n fees are not a reco verable c ost. The award of costs for expert witness testimony is committed to the sound discretion of the trial c ourt. 4 When determining reasonable reimbursement for expert costs, the co urt must recog nize that a significan t disruption to a p hysician s practice occurs when a physician is called to testify as an expert witness and that such testimony is important to the court since it assists the trier of fact and serves a significan t public in terest. 5 There is no fixed formu la to determ ine reaso nable expert fees.6 Nevertheless, in 2002, the court held that a fee of $1,800 was 4 Delaware Water & Air Resources Com n., 358 A.2d 717, 723 (Del. 1976), 10 Del. C. § 8906 (1999). 5 Sliwinski v. Duncan, 1992 WL 21132 at *2 (Del.). 6 Id. 3 appropriate for expert medical testimony that lasted about an hour and a half plus travel time for a total of a half-day of the witness time.7 The court finds that reimbursement of $500 for Dr. Bonner s deposition testimony is appropriate here. The court finds that the cancellation fees were not a necessarily incurred expense of defendants and therefore, are not recoverable.8 V. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, Wilson s Motion for Costs is GRANTED in the amount of $500. ________________________ Calvin L. Scott, Jr. Superior Court Judge 7 8 Dunckle v. Prettyman, 2002 WL 833375 at *4 (Del. Super.). See Nygaard v. Lucchesi, 654 A.2d 410, 415 (Del. Super. 1994). 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.