Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/857088.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 857088.pdf
Full Text
1,750 chars148 Wn. App. 246, 201 P.3d 331 (2008), Division Three of our court noted that “our Supreme Court has recognized there are no grounds for awarding expert witness fees as costs” and ultimately held that “RCW 4.84.010 does not authorize expert witness fees in an award of costs to the prevailing party.” Id. at 263 (citing Wagner v. Foote, 128 Wn.2d 408, 417-18, 908 P.2d 884 (1996), and Fiorito v. Goerig, 27 Wn.2d 615, 620, 179 P.2d 316 (1947)). Although the WLAD creates a statutory basis for a prevailing plaintiff to recover expert witness fees, the act does not entitle a prevailing defendant to recover such fees. See Xieng v. Peoples Nat. Bank of Wash., 120 Wn.2d 512, 526-30, 844 P.2d 389 (1993) (noting that RCW 49.60.030(2) permits the “person deeming himself injured by any act in violation” of the WLAD to recover costs of suit). Accordingly, the trial court erred in awarding Symetra’s expert witness fees. Second, Bittner argues the trial court erred by awarding costs to Symetra under RCW 4.84.010(7) for the fees charged by videographers who videotaped depositions. We agree. The plain language of RCW 4.84.010(7) indicates that videographer fees are not recoverable because they do not relate to the transcription of a deposition. See W EBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL 238 P.3d 1184 (2010) (addressing whether, as a matter of law, prejudgment interest may properly be awarded on remand “[b]ecause this issue is likely to recur on remand”). - 28 - For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 85708-8-I DICTIONARY 2426 (2002) (defining “transcribe” as “to make a written copy of”). Accordingly, the trial court erred in awarding Symetra’s videographer fees under RCW 4.84.010.