Landis v. Hannaford Bros. Co.
Decision Date | 15 June 2000 |
Citation | 754 A.2d 958,2000 ME 111 |
Parties | Patricia LANDIS v. HANNAFORD BROTHERS CO. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
David F. Szewczyk, William E. Macdonald, Macdonald Chase & Szewczyk, Bangor, for plaintiff.
Frederick F. Costlow, Richardson, Whitman, Large & Badger, P.C., Bangor, for defendant.
Panel: WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS, JJ.
[¶ 1] Hannaford Brothers Co. (Hannaford) appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Hancock County, Mectd, C.J.) granting Patricia Landis certain costs associated with litigation between the parties. On appeal, Hannaford contends that the court erred in awarding fees because Landis was not the prevailing party, and in the alternative contends that the amount awarded was improper because the court failed to offset the award by medical expenses prepaid by Hannaford under 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2426(2) (2000), and improperly included fees charged by an expert witness. Finding no preserved error, we affirm the judgment.
[¶ 2] The facts are not in dispute. In 1996, Patricia Landis slipped on a wet floor in the Ellsworth Shop failure to properly mop up the floor. After a trial, the jury retired to consider its verdict. During its deliberations, the jury asked the presiding justice to inform it what amount Hannaford had already paid toward Landis's medical expenses. Although it is not clear from the record, the parties agree that the trial justice instructed the jury that it should not concern itself with this question. The jury then requested a read-back of certain testimony that included an account of Hannaford's payments to Landis for her injury, and this testimony was read to the jury. The testimony was that Hannaford had already paid approximately $6000 to Landis to cover the cost of surgery.1
[¶ 3] The jury returned a verdict finding Hannaford negligent, but awarded no damages. The jury verdict form reflected that the eight-member jury found as follows:
Hannaford was negligent: 8-0 Hannaford's negligence was the proximate case of Landis's injury: 6-2 Landis was not negligent: 7-1 Zero ($0) awarded as compensation for injuries: 8-0
Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict. There is no dispute with respect to the jury's verdict.2
[¶ 4] Landis submitted a bill of costs. Hannaford objected on the grounds that Landis had not "prevailed," and that in any event it was entitled to offset the amounts it had already paid Landis, which exceeded her costs, under 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2426. In addition, Hannaford specifically objected to the inclusion of certain costs, including the cost of the deposition of a Dr. Kuffler (who did not testify at trial), but did not object to the inclusion of the cost of the deposition of a Dr. Mainen. After considering briefs regarding the interpretation of the statute, the court awarded costs to Landis in full with the exception of an $18 charge for mileage involving Landis's counsel's attendance at the trial management conference. Hannaford then filed this appeal.
[¶ 5] Rule 54 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[c]osts shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party, as provided by statute and by these rules, unless the court otherwise specifically directs." M.R. Civ. P. 54(d).
[¶ 6] In Dodge v. United Services Automobile Association, 417 A.2d 969 (Me. 1980), we articulated a "functional analysis" for determining who is the prevailing party for Rule 54(d) purposes. Id. at 974-75. In order to determine who has prevailed, the trial court "must look at the lawsuit as a whole to determine which party was the `winner' and which the `loser.'" Id. at 975. Although not explicitly stated in Dodge, the nature of this inquiry is essentially one of fact. If the court is to look at the lawsuit "as a whole," the trial court justice is in the best position to apply this test. Accordingly, we review that court's determination of who is the prevailing party for clear error.3See Robards v. Cotton Mill Assocs., 1998 ME 157, ¶ 10, 713 A.2d 952, 955
; Hicks v. City of West-brook, 649 A.2d 328, 329 (Me.1994).
[¶ 7] Hannaford contends that, when viewing the lawsuit as a whole, Landis was not the prevailing party because she received no award of damages. Hannaford would have us apply a bright-line rule. Notwithstanding Hannaford's claim that the trial court did not apply the "functional analysis" test, Hannaford effectively suggests that the single fact that no damages were awarded prevents a finding that Landis prevailed when viewing the lawsuit "as a whole." We have addressed this issue previously.
That she [the plaintiff, Eileen] cannot recover from Hall [the defendant] on the judgment because she has been compensated through a settlement may be Hall's good fortune but should not negate what Eileen has obtained—a determination that Hall's negligence resulted in harm or injury to Eileen, that injury being the loss of a viable cause of action. Eileen is entitled to her costs.
Hoitt v. Hall, 661 A.2d 669, 674 (Me.1995). "`[T]he determination of a successful party... is to be based upon success upon the merits, not upon damages.'" Id (quoting Perez v. Baker Packers, a Div. of Baker Int'l Corp., 694 S.W.2d 138, 143 (Tex.App. 1985)). Thus, a lack of a monetary award to a party does not necessarily preclude a determination that the party has prevailed.
[¶ 8] Here, although Landis was not awarded damages, the trial justice could reasonably conclude that she nevertheless prevailed in the lawsuit. The jury determined 8 to 0 that Hannaford was negligent, and 6 to 2 that this negligence proximately caused her injury. In addition, the jury found 7 to 1 that Landis was not negligent. Given those conclusions by the jury on the merits and Hannaford's prior payments to Landis, we cannot say that the court's conclusion that Landis had prevailed was clearly erroneous.
[¶ 9] Hannaford contends that it should be able to offset any costs it may be ordered to pay Landis against payments it has already made to her for her injury under 24-A M.R.S.A. § 2426. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. See Cook v. Lisbon Sch. Comm., 682 A.2d 672, 676 (Me.1996)
.
[¶ 10] In its entirety, section 2426 provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flaherty v. Muther
...(2010). To determine which party prevailed, the court applies a “functional analysis” and views “the lawsuit as a whole.” Landis v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 2000 ME 111, ¶ 6, 754 A.2d 958, 959 (quotation marks omitted). Because we vacate the court's judgment in part, on remand, the factual dete......
-
Flaherty v. Muther
...Servs Auto. Ass'n., 417 A.2d 969, 974-75 (Me. 1980) (citation omitted); see also Landis v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 2000 ME 111, ¶ 6, 754 A.2d 958, 959. and Muther argue that they should be awarded costs against the State because the State did not prevail in this case and, in particular, becaus......
-
Flaherty v. Muther
...and which the 'loser.'" Dodge v. United Serv.s Auto. Ass'n., 417 A.2d 969, 974-75 (Me. 1980) (citation omitted); see also Landis v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 2000 ME 111, ¶ 6, 754 A.2d 958, 959. Woods and Muther argue that they should be awarded costs against the State because the State did not ......
-
Garland v. Roy
...claim to fail as a matter of law, and Angeline was therefore not a prevailing party pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 54(d). See Landis v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 2000 ME 111, ¶ 7, 754 A.2d 958, 959-60 (stating that the determination of who is the prevailing party pursuant to Rule 54(d) is "based upon ......