AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The plaintiffs, acting as personal representatives of their deceased minor son, brought a wrongful death action against the Española Public School District and its Board of Education, among others, after their son died in an ATV accident on school grounds. The plaintiffs sought damages for the incident (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court, February 2002: The district court awarded the plaintiffs $19,441.13 in costs but denied costs for non-testifying expert witnesses, citing NMSA 1978, Section 38-6-4(B) (paras 2, 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the district court erred in concluding it lacked discretion under Section 38-6-4(B) to award costs for non-testifying expert witnesses. They contended that the statute does not explicitly prohibit such awards and cited case law suggesting broader judicial discretion (paras 3, 7-8).
• Defendants-Appellees: Asserted that Section 38-6-4(B) clearly limits cost awards to expert witnesses who testify in person or by deposition. They argued that the district court correctly applied the statute and relied on precedent, including Jimenez v. Foundation Reserve Insurance Company (paras 4-6).

Legal Issues

• Does NMSA 1978, Section 38-6-4(B) allow a district court to award costs for expert witnesses who do not testify in person or by deposition?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that costs for non-testifying expert witnesses are not authorized under Section 38-6-4(B) (para 11).

Reasons

Per Robinson J. (Sutin and Fry JJ. concurring):

• The court conducted a de novo review of Section 38-6-4(B), which explicitly limits cost awards for expert witnesses to those who testify in person or by deposition. The statute's plain language does not permit costs for non-testifying experts, and the district court correctly interpreted this provision (paras 4-7).
• The plaintiffs' reliance on Gillingham v. Reliable Chevrolet and Dunleavy v. Miller was misplaced. Gillingham involved a misapplication of precedent, and Dunleavy did not support awarding costs for non-testifying experts. Instead, Dunleavy emphasized careful scrutiny of costs to reduce litigation expenses (paras 8-9).
• The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that exceptional circumstances justified awarding costs for non-testifying experts. The scheduling order requiring expert summaries did not create such circumstances (para 10).
• The court concluded that awarding costs for non-testifying experts is not authorized by statute, the Rules of Civil Procedure, or case law, affirming the district court's decision (para 11).