Case Name: Hershal G. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and Scott Truck and Tractor Company of Louisiana, Inc., Defendant, Aetna Life and Casualty Company, Intervenor-Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1985-10-10
Citations: 476 So. 2d 1074
Docket Number: No. 84-658
Parties: Hershal G. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and Scott Truck and Tractor Company of Louisiana, Inc., Defendant, Aetna Life and Casualty Company, Intervenor-Appellee.
Judges: Before DOMENGEAUX, FORET and YELVERTON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 476
Pages: 1074–1077

Head Matter:
Hershal G. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and Scott Truck and Tractor Company of Louisiana, Inc., Defendant, Aetna Life and Casualty Company, Intervenor-Appellee.
No. 84-658.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Oct. 10, 1985.
Jeansonne, Briney & Goudelocke, John A. Jeansonne, Jr., Lafayette, for defendant-appellant.
J. Eddie Knoll, Marksville, C. John Cas-key of Due, Dodson, de Gravelles, Robinson & Caskey, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.
Trimble, Percy, Smith, Wilson, Foote, Walker & Honeycutt, James Trimble, Jr., Alexandria, for defendant-appellee.
Gold, Simon, Weems, Bruser, Sharp, Sues & Rundell, Robert C. Nida, Alexandria, for intervenor-appellee.
Before DOMENGEAUX, FORET and YELVERTON, JJ.

Opinion:
DOMENGEAUX, Judge.
This appeal arises from a products liability suit wherein the trial court taxed costs against the Bucyrus-Erie Company, the party who prevailed on the merits. Bucy-rus-Erie Company has appealed on the issue of costs only. The appellees herein are the plaintiff, Hershal Johnson, and the in-tervenor, Aetna Life and Casualty Company.
Hershal Johnson originally filed suit against the Bucyrus-Erie Company and Scott Truck and Tractor Company of Louisiana, Inc., seeking recovery for alleged personal injuries sustained in a work related incident. After suit was filed, the worker's compensation insurance carrier of Mr. Johnson's employer, Aetna Life and Casualty Company, intervened. At trial the plaintiff's claims against Scott Truck and Tractor Company of Louisiana, Inc. were dismissed at the close of the plaintiff's case following a directed verdict in that defendant's favor. On the third and last day of trial the remaining claims against Bucyrus-Erie Company were submitted to the jury which returned a verdict in the defendant's favor. The trial judge rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's findings. However, the lower court's decision taxed all costs of trial (the sum of $4,105.09) against the prevailing defendant, Bucyrus-Erie Company.
Defendant-appellant, Bucyrus-Erie Company, has appealed, alleging that "[t]he trial court erred in taxing court costs in a tort suit to the successful defendant, where circumstances did not justify doing so." Although appellant's contentions may have merit, for the reasons hereinafter assigned we are unable to make that determination on a factually barren record.
La.C.C.P. Art. 1920 provides that a court may assess costs against any party, even against the party prevailing on the merits. Jinks v. McClure, 344 So.2d 675 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1977). Furthermore, the trial court is vested with great discretion in determining who is liable for costs of court. American Deposit Insurance Company v. Walker, 450 So.2d 33 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984). However, the discretion of the trial court in assessment of costs is restricted to the realm of the "equitable" by La.C.C.P. Art. 1920. What is "equitable" can only be determined on a case-by-case basis which necessarily involves a review of the facts involved. Bryant v. Harris, 295 So.2d 566 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1974); LeBlanc v. Opt, Inc., 421 So.2d 984 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1982), writ to Third Circuit Court of Appeal denied, 427 So.2d 438 (La.1983), writ denied, 429 So.2d 132 (La.1983).
In its brief appellant states that "to minimize expense, and to avoid increasing this Court's burden, this Appeal has been taken.... pursuant to Article 2128 of the Code of Civil Procedure." In other words, the appellant took a limited appeal pursuant to La.C.C.P. Art. 2128 and designated only the pleadings in the case as the Record on Appeal. Claiming as authority La.C.C.P. Art. 2129, appellant filed into the record a Statement of Points upon which it intended to rely in this appeal. Appellant's Statement of Points can best be described as a litany of what it perceived as the "facts" adduced at trial. Appellees take the position that there is no fact record enabling a review of the equities in the costs issue before this Court. They maintain that a Statement of Points is not a substitute for the Record on Appeal.
We agree with the appellees' interpretation of the applicable codal articles. La.C.C.P. Art. 2130 and 2131 provide that the facts of a case may reach an appellate court in one of three ways: transcribed testimony, stipulated narrative of facts, or the trial court's written narrative of facts. La.C.C.P. Art. 2129 does not authorize a party to unilaterally narrate the alleged facts for the benefit of the appellate court; that Article merely requires an assignment of errors (or, a Statement of Points) when the appellant takes a limited appeal.
Finally, the appellant contends that if the appellees felt that the testimony at trial was necessary for this Court's review, they should have requested a supplemental record pursuant to La.C.C.P. Art. 2128. We find this case to be substantially similar to Shannon's Refrigeration Service Contractors, Inc. v. General Oilfield Trucking, Inc., 277 So.2d 457 (La.App. 1st Cir.1973), wherein it was said:
"There is no transcript of testimony in the record for the court to review. Also there is no note of evidence stipulated to by the parties or submitted by the trial judge. Additionally there are no reasons for judgment from the trial court. Where there is no note of evidence in the record, it is presumed the trial judge proceeded on proper evidence and it is appellant's duty to produce the transcript or note of evidence necessary to show the contrary." (Citations omitted), (Emphasis Ours).
Since the appellant has not produced the testimony necessary for our review of the factual issues inherent in this appeal, we are bound to presume that the judgment of the trial court was correct and supported by sufficient competent evidence. Gardemal v. MCM Industries, Inc., 398 So.2d 144 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1981), writ denied, 401 So.2d 994 (La.1981); Succession of Cameron, 446 So.2d 948 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984).
For the above and foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal to be borne by the appellant.
AFFIRMED.
FORET, J., dissents and assigns reasons.