WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0l 0DU 0J 0T 0^7 0h 0r 0|o 0 0q 1u 0dv UB % U6" B)X DC B AM U*.X\t D3Ov~v 0@ AOb 0D( D/l BU!3|xR($ IJDKLDMDNODPQRӀ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd d-#C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#!  &&   YYY FILED&X September25,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.&AppellateCourtClerk  R !#d#!   $       !IndeclaratoryjudgmentcasesT.C.A.2914111provides:... thecourt0 maymakesuchawardofcostsasmayseemequitableandjust[Acts1923Ch.9.]  u !#d#!   $       !Thisdiscretionwascarriedforwardintherule: costsincluded...0 bytheClerkshallbeallowedtotheprevailingpartyunlessthecourtotherwisedirects... (emphasisadded).$$$$'dxdPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !        \RA'\7XXdd7L%'#;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION WILLIAMHOLLIFIELD,etux, )C/ANO.03A019605CV00172etal.,     )      )HAMBLENLAW PlaintiffsAppellees, )      )HON.WILLIAMJENKINS,v.      )JUDGE      )CITYOFMORRISTOWN,   )AFFIRMEDASMODIFIED      )AND DefendantAppellant. )REMANDEDJAMESM.DAVIS,Morristown,forPlaintiffsAppellees,WilliamHollifield,etux.JOHNC.DUFFY,WATSON,HOLLOWandREEVES,P.L.C.,Knoxville,forDefendantAppellant.@ OPINION @         Franks.J.!!X  InthiswrongfuldeathactionagainsttheCityofMorristown( City )filedpursuanttotheGovernmentalTortLiabilityAct,T.C.A.2920101,etseq.( GTLA )theTrialJudgeenteredjudgmentagainsttheCityandanotherdefendant,findingtheCity25%atfaultfortheaccident.TheCourtalsoawardeddiscretionarycoststotheplaintiff,ontheauthorityofTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure54.04,whichstates:0 0 54.04.Costs. (1)Costsincludedinthebillofcostspreparedbytheclerkshallbeallowedtotheprevailingpartyunlessthecourtotherwisedirects,butcostsagainstthestate,itsofficers,oritsagenciesshallbeimposedonlytotheextentpermittedbylaw.0 0  (2)Costsnotincludedinthebillofcostspreparedbytheclerkareallowableonlyinthecourtsdiscretion.Discretionarycostsallowableare:reasonableandnecessarycourtreporterexpensesfordepositionsortrials,reasonableandnecessaryexpertwitnessfeesfordepositionsortrials,andguardianadlitemfees;travelexpensesarenotallowablediscretionarycosts.SubjecttoRule41.04,apartyrequestingdiscretionarycostsshallfileandserveamotionwithinthirty(30)daysafterentryofjudgment.Thetrialcourtretainsjurisdictionoveramotionfordiscretionarycostseventhoughapartyhasfiledanoticeofappeal.  TheCityhasappealed,insistingthatitisnotsubjecttothepaymentofdiscretionarycosts,relyingheavilyonanunreportedcaseofthisCourt,TennesseeSmallSchoolSystems,etal.,v.NedRayMcWherter,etal.,CourtofAppeals,MiddleSection,filedAugust4,1993.JudgeLewisinthatcaseheldthatT.R.C.P.Rule54.04(2),onlyauthorizesthetrialcourttoawarddiscretionarycostsingeneralterms,andsincetheRuledoesnotspecificallyauthorizediscretionarycoststobeassessedagainsttheStatewhereimmunityhasnotbeenremoved,theStateisnotliableforsuchcosts.  WeagreewithJudgeLewisdecision,butitdoesnotcontrolthecasebeforeus.TheMcWhertercasewasadeclaratoryjudgment (   כproceedingandtheissueofdiscretionarycostsbeforetheLewisCourtwaspresentedwiththefullforceofsovereignimmunityapplyingtoallaspectsofthatlitigation.  Asnoted,thecasebeforeuswasbroughtpursuanttotheGovernmentalTortLiabilityActwhichwaivestheStatessovereignimmunity,butlimitsdamagesrecoverablethereunder.TheActdoesnotmention costs or discretionarycosts .TheActalsoprovidesthatwhereimmunityfromsuitisremovedbytheAct,theentityisplacedinthepositionof aprivateperson .T.C.A.2920206.  IntherecentcaseofLucius,etal.,v.CityofMemphis,___S.W.2d___,filedJuly15,1996,theSupremeCourtheldthatmunicipalitiesareliableforpostjudgmentinterestonjudgmentsrenderedundertheGTLA.TheissuearosebecausetheGTLAallowspostjudgmentinterestifpaymentsweremadeininstallmentsbutdoesnotmentioninterestforlumpsumpayments.T.C.A.2920312.TheSupremeCourtfoundthatdespitethelackofaspecificprovisionintheGTLAforpostjudgmentinterestinnoninstallmentpaymentsituations,theTennesseestatuteprovidinggenerallyforintereston every judgmentwouldcontrol.ThecourtconcludedthatbecausethegeneralinterestprovisionsoftheTennesseeCode donotconflictwithspecificprovisionsofGTLA,itsstructure,purpose,orintent,[they]applytoactionsbroughtundertheGTLA. TheCourtalsostatedthatthisdecisionwas inaccordwithrecentdecisionsrefutingthesweepingnotionthattheGTLAnecessarilyexcludestheapplicationofallotherrulesandstatutesnotspecificallymadeapartoftheGTLAevenabsentstatutoryconflictorunderminingofthepurposesoftheGTLA.   Weholdthatsincegovernmentalimmunitywaswaived,theprovisionsforcostscontainedinT.R.C.P.54.04(1)and(2)applytoactionsfiledunderthisAct,whichisinkeepingwiththeSupremeCourtsdecisionthatthegenerallawastointerestonjudgmentappliedtojudgmentsundertheGTLA.  Alternatively,theCityarguesthatsincethecodefendantsnegligencewasfoundtobe75% atfault 𛀜forplaintiffsinjuries,andthisdefendantonly25%,theTrialCourtwasinerrorinawarding100%ofthediscretionarycostsagainstthisdefendant.Plaintiffcountersthatthediscretionarycostswereproperlyassessedagainst thepartymakingdefensetothislitigation .  Ithasbeenheldthatadjudgingcostiswithinthe reasonable discretionoftheJudge.Statev.Flatt,etal.,505S.W.2d724(Tenn.1974);Runionsv.Runions,186Tenn.25,207S.W.2d1016(1948). )   כApplyingthisstandard,onthefactsofthiscasewebelievetheTrialJudgeabusedhisreasonablediscretion.Bothdefendantswererequiredtorespondindamagesandtoassessallcoststoonedefendantwasanabuse.Werejecttheargumentthatineverycasewherecomparativefaultisdeterminedthatcostsmustbepreciselybasedonthedegreeoffaultofeachdefendant.Weholdthatareasonableassessmentofcostsisonehalftoeachdefendant.  ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,asmodified,andthecostoftheappealisassessedonehalftoeachparty.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.