Case Name: Patricia MORRIS v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1984-02-09
Citations: 446 So. 2d 457
Docket Number: No. CA 1122
Parties: Patricia MORRIS v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC.
Judges: Before BYRNES, AUGUSTINE and WARD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 446
Pages: 457–459

Head Matter:
Patricia MORRIS v. NEW ORLEANS PUBLIC SERVICE, INC.
No. CA 1122.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Feb. 9, 1984.
Writ Denied April 2, 1984.
Darleen Jacobs, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
James Maher, III, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Before BYRNES, AUGUSTINE and WARD, JJ.

Opinion:
BYRNES, Judge.
This appeal arises out of a tort action involving injuries sustained by plaintiff when she fell while disembarking from a NOPSI bus. Patricia Morris, plaintiff-ap-pellee, brought suit against New Orleans Public Service Inc. in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish. The matter was tried before a jury on January 31, 1983 which, returned a verdict in favor of the defendant finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent. The trial judge entered judgment in accordance with the jury's findings, dismissing plaintiff's suit at her cost. On March 22, 1983 the judge, on his own motion, amended the earlier judgment and assessed all costs against NOPSI. NOPSI appeals.
NÓPSI contends that the trial judge abused his discretion and acted in contravention of C.C.P. Art. 1951 by assessing costs against NOPSI in an amended judgment. Article 1951 states that judgments may be amended by the court at any time: "(1.) To alter the phraseology of the judgment, but not the substance; or (2.) to correct errors of calculation." NOPSI argues that the change in the assessment of costs alters the substance of the judgment and is therefore prohibited.
A trial court has wide discretion in assessing costs as it deems most equitable. C.C.P. Art. 1920; Bowman v. New Orleans Public Service Inc., 410 So.2d 270 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982). On review we are mandated to render any judgment which is proper based on the record, including the assessment of trial court costs. C.C.P. Art. 2164. See also Custom Builders and Supply Inc. v. Revels, 310 So.2d 862 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1975).
In the present case both parties were found negligent. The accident occurred prior to our new comparitive negligence statutes and plaintiff was therefore barred from recovering damages. The trial court apparently felt that equity demanded that the plaintiff not be taxed with the costs of the suit. At the close of proceedings the trial judge stated:
The court is going to assess as expert fees $150.00 for [each doctor] . and, of course, will sign a judgment tomorrow, taxing all costs against the defendant. (tr. 396). [emphasis added]
The court then asked each party if they wished to add anything to the record and counsel for each responded "no". We note that the defendant made no objection to the assessment of costs when the court made the above statement.
Article 1951 permits the amendment of judgments on the court's own initiative to correct a clerical error, as long as the substance of the judgment remains unchanged. James v. James, 393 So.2d 162 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980); Frazier v. Carl E. Woodward, Inc., 378 So.2d 209 (La.App. 4th Cir.1979).
It is clear from the transcript that the court originally intended to assess costs against the defendant. Due to an apparent clerical error the court signed a judgment which assessed costs against the plaintiff. Upon discovering the mistake the court amended the original judgment to be consistent with the court's intended assessment of costs. We find that the amended judgment did not alter the substance of the original judgment as evidenced by the court's statements in the record.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
All costs of this appeal are to be borne by appellant.
AFFIRMED.
WARD, J., dissents in part with reasons.