Opinion ID: 1058297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of Transcript

Text: Automax raises one additional issue on appeal. It contends that the trial court erred in allowing Plaintiffs to use a transcript from the trial in general sessions court because Defendant paid for the court reporter and Plaintiffs did not share in the cost. Following the trial in general sessions court, and before the trial in circuit court, the expert for Plaintiffs died. Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the expert's testimony from the lower court be admitted on the transcript. The trial court granted the motion over Defendant's objection. A party who does not share in the per diem expense of a court reporter runs the risk of not having a verbatim record available. This risk stems from the contractual relationship created between the reporter and the payee. See Beef N' Bird of Am., Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 803 S.W.2d 234, 241 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990). The Court of Appeals explains the situation in this case: It is uncontested that Appellants made arrangements with the court reporter to purchase a copy of the transcript. After procuring the copy, Appellants sought its admission in the trial court. Automax contends that Appellants did not make satisfactory arrangements with Automax in obtaining the transcript. While it is true that Appellants did not seek Automax's permission, they were able to buy a transcript from the reporter. Any contractual obligations concerning the transcript arise from the terms of any agreement between Automax and the reporter it hired. Consequently, if Automax disagrees with the court reporter's actions in selling the Appellants a copy of the transcript, that is a dispute between Automax and the court reporter. We agree with and adopt this summation from Court of Appeals and hold that Defendant's issue is without merit.