Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P, a professional baseball player in Japan, was injured when his leg broke through a wooden deck during a tour of D's resort property. P said that he needed no medical attention, but two weeks later, he informed D that he had suffered cuts, bruises, and torn ligaments from the accident. P claimed damages for medical expenses and for lost income from contracts he was unable to honor. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court granted D's motion on the ground that P offered no evidence that D knew of the defective deck or otherwise failed to exercise reasonable care. D paid to have various documents translated from Japanese to English. D submitted a bill for those costs. Over P's objection, the District Court awarded the costs to D as “compensation of interpreters” under §1920(6). The court held that costs for document translation “fall within the meaning of 'compensation of an interpreter.' ” The Court of Appeals affirmed. The court explained that “the word 'interpreter' can reasonably encompass a 'translator,' both according to the dictionary definition and common usage of these terms, which does not always draw precise distinctions between foreign language interpretations involving live speech versus written documents.” This construction of the statute “ was deemed more compatible with Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which includes a decided preference for the award of costs to the prevailing party.” P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co