WPC]@ {ID"V@w6jYC.F[}7ڑ#} v|:ꝥ$I`! TKf;B.N/[2lDT5EGuvg1lB/a9]B82w~JZVϮ+<(J@~bXpB %RTM3׺f.~ܿ ]~dc%MԠ #n1E'9AӒ,W\؀5öꞨG?lMFăB+CZĘ2+,z=۞w3ҶT 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0v 0^ 0C 0( 0  0 0 0 0 0 0{ 0_ 0C! 0$" 0# 0<# 0#U:$ 04% 0V% 0& 0"j& 0nd' 0 B' 0<( 0TP( 0(( 0h) 0:) -*7* 0",, 0- 0R. 0(/ D+// AQZ/\/U>1  E1  O1 Y1  i1  s1  }1  1 A1@ 22o<2  2@ 2o2 1ej3 73 B3 0C3=437 08: B-:; Bg;; 0;#.<U N> %E?MK?(O?Nw? 1uy? 72?^ @w,@40@D@ mF@\  `&Times New Roman' IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE *Clerk and Master*0Clerk and Master .   2S+P 0_level1  , ;1` hp x (#;23  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2P+P 0_level2  X 8.` hp x (#823  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2P+P 0_level3   8.444` hp x (#823  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2M+P 0_level4   5+` ` ` hp x (#523  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2M+P 0_level5   5+ hp x (#523  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2J+P 0_level6   2( hp x (#223  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2J+P 0_level7  4 2( hp x (#223  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2G+P 0_level8  ` /% hp x (#/23  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2G+P 0_level9   /%< <<hp x (#/23  ..  8.` hp x (#8  2SP 0_levsl1  , ;1` hp x (#;23  Ԁ  8.` hp x (#8  2PP 0_levsl2  X 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ  8.` hp x (#8  2PP 0_levsl3   8.444` hp x (#823  Ԁ  8.` hp x (#8  2MP 0_levsl4   5+` ` ` hp x (#523  Ԁ  8.` hp x (#8  2MP 0_levsl5   5+ hp x (#523  Ԁ  8.` hp x (#8  2JP 0_levsl6   2( hp x (#223  Ԁ  8.` hp x (#8  2JP 0_levsl7  4 2( hp x (#223  Ԁ  8.` hp x (#8  2GP 0_levsl8  ` /% hp x (#/23  Ԁ  8.` hp x (#8  2GP 0_levsl9   /%< <<hp x (#/23  Ԁ  8.` hp x (#8  2SP 0_levnl1  , ;1` hp x (#;23   8.` hp x (#8  2PP 0_levnl2  X 8.` hp x (#823   8.` hp x (#8  2PP 0_levnl3   8.444` hp x (#823   8.` hp x (#8  2MP 0_levnl4   5+` ` ` hp x (#523   8.` hp x (#8  2MP 0_levnl5   5+ hp x (#523   8.` hp x (#8  2JP 0_levnl6   2( hp x (#223   8.` hp x (#8  2JP 0_levnl7  4 2( hp x (#223   8.` hp x (#8  2GP 0_levnl8  ` /% hp x (#/23   8.` hp x (#8  2GP 0_levnl9   /%< <<hp x (#/23   8.` hp x (#8  67 '4Heading 1XXX      XXX<:Default Para.sw ,TitleO!* `"Comic Sans MSO    XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS* `"Comic Sans MS:'' 8Body Text 2     XXX : 8Body Text 3     8U[ 6Block Text X    2( ` hp x2     8.` hp x (#8< :Body Text I2 X     X < :Footnote TexXXX<:Footnote Ref6 4Body Text <  :Body Text I1 X X <DD :Body Text In X 8.` hp x (#8  8.` hp x (#80A .Footer (#A7X` hp x (#A:8Page Number   /)..      QXXXQXXXXQX  _56WGCz h  p @X@ESSs (#(#7XXXX+$ (#X$  +d  XXX7X(2$ OH!..      QXXXQXXXXQX  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ OH!..      QXXXQXXXXQX  (2$ OH!..      QXXXQXXXXQX  ($'dxd01234C<< c R 1"..      QXXXQXXXXQX  _$ (#X$,  -  XX7-  XX7XXXX\  `&Times New Romana1a3Text5a4a5a6a74&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKKA WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -a8D WPC i K513%)+-51d~ - 35;AGMSY_11.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.E i. d($      OH!..      QXXXQXXXXQX  X B.` hp x (#XB&XX  X &  '    1  '`O  ݀NowcodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.283105&A݌  ЌXX  &XX  &F  XX ) OH!..      QXXXQXXXXQX  _ X B.` hp x (#XB&XX  X &  '    2  'pO  ݀Indeterminingwhetheranuisanceiscreated,thecriterionforafactfinderistheeffectofaparticularuseof  propertyonpersonsofordinaryhealthandsensibilities.Jenkinsv_CSX_ԀTransp.,Inc.,906S.W.2d460(Tenn.App. o 1995).XX(25W$ OH!..      QXXXQXXXXQX  XXX  0  )Hairline d  d#|x(rH$..      QXXXQXXXXQX\\IB27S11\STATS1,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularQX3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Vi)1, Ԁ6230ThomasJ.Seeley,Jr.,%>ԀCircuitJudge R  -  ?@k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE K K2 -  No.% B %BE200301979COAR3CVFILEDDECEMBER16,2004   -  ?Ck[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEu K Ku2 -     Appellantsappeal(1)ajurydeterminationthatarockquarry,anasphaltplant,andtrucking j activitiesdidnotcreateanuisanceand(2)theallowanceofdiscretionarycosts.Weaffirm. P (     (   ( 5 ݌̌  #     #|   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight,JudgmentoftheUnicoiCountyCircuitCourt l Affirmed,CaseRemanded.#| ݌ R Ќ   ́  HowellN.Peoples,Sp.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourtinwhichHerschelP.Franks,P.J.  andD.MichaelSwiney,J.,joined.    Ӂ  ThomasC.Jessee,Jessee&Jessee,JohnsonCity,TennesseefortheAppellants. f   Ӂ  RonaldS.Range,Jr.,JenniferP.Keller,Baker,Donelson,Bearman,Caldwell&Berkowitz, 2  JohnsonCity,TennesseeandGaryC.Shockley,Baker,Donelson,Bearman,Caldwell& !h  Berkowitz,Nashville,TennesseeforAppellee,AmericanLimestoneCompany. !N!   Ӂ  StevenC.Rose,West&Rose,Kingsport,Tennessee,LannyR.Norris,Norris,Bush&Byrd, ## Elizabethton,Tennessee,andRichardNorris,LaPorte&Norris,Elizabethton,Tennesseefor $ $ Appellees,HyderConstructionCompany,Inc.andConstructionandPavingServices,Inc. % %   Ӂ́  H(#( - - -  _   `     h OPINION  Ё) X    )B  AppellantsfiledtheircomplaintinthismatteronOctober4,2001allegingthatAmerican | LimestoneCompany,Inc.( AmericanLimestone)createdatemporarynuisanceinthe b operationofarockquarrynearAppellantspropertybecauseofblastingnoise,noisefromthe H operation,vibrationanddust.TheyallegedthatHyderConstructionCompany,Inc.( Hyder) . ~ andsubsequently,ConstructionandPavingServices,Inc.( ConstructionandPaving),operated  d anasphaltplantasatemporarynuisancebecauseofthesmokeandodoremittedfromtheplant.  J Appellantsallegedthetemporarynuisanceshouldbeabatedbyinjunctionandpaymentof  0 damages.Theyalsoallegedthatthesmoke,odor,dustanddebristhatenteredtheirproperty    becauseofoperationsoftherockquarryandasphaltplantconstitutedatrespass.)Bw݌    Ќ X  ) X    )  )݌   Ќ X  ) X    )i  AmericanLimestonefiledananswerdenyingnuisanceandtrespass,andalleging x  comparativefaultonthepartoftheotherdefendantandotherpartiesnotsued.American ^  Limestonealsoallegedtheclaimswerebarredbythestatuteoflimitations,estoppel,movingto D  thearea,andlaches.Hyderallegeditonlyoperatedanasphaltplantforashortperiodoftime *z  thensoldittoConstructionandPaving,allegedcomparativefaultofothers,anddeniedthe ` nuisanceandtrespass.ConstructionandPavinganswereddenyingnuisance,trespassand F allegingcomparativefault.)i݌ , Ќ X  ) X  )  )݌  Ќ X  ) X  )X  Issuesrelatingtoblastingdamageswereraisedandresolvedbysettlement.Also,  originalplaintiffsElmerBradshaw,LillianBradshawandVernonShellsettledtheirclaims  beforeorafterthetrialofthiscauseanddidnotparticipateinthisAppeal.)X݌ t Ќ X  ) X    )  )G݌ Z Ќ X  ) X    )  AnofferofjudgmentwasfiledbyAmericanLimestoneandacounterofferwasfiledby @ theoriginalplaintiffs.)݌ &v Ќ X  ) X    )  ) ݌  \ Ќ X  ) X    )w  AjurytrialresultedinaverdictthatAppelleesdidnotcauseanuisanceorcommita B trespass.Thetrialcourtratifiedtheverdict,grantedthemotionofAmericanLimestonefor ( discretionarycosts,butdeniedsuchcoststoConstructionandPaving.)w݌  Ќ X      Ё   `     h Issues p!   V"!   Appellantspresentthefollowingissues: <#"  E (03V""  ,E1` hp x (#XE  ,H+4 4` hp x (#X(#H 2  1  .3   4   Didthetrialcourterrbychargingbothtemporaryandpermanentnuisanceand %X $ requiringtheplaintiffstoofferproofofboth? !݌ %>!% Ќ $ X44` X(#$   ""  ,E1` hp x (#XE  ,H+4 4` hp x (#X(#H"2  2  .3   4   Didthetrialcourterrbysubmittingtheissuesoftemporaryorpermanentnuisanceto &$"& thejury?"#݌ ' #' Ќ $ X44` X(#$   ""  ,E1` hp x (#XE  ,H+4 4` hp x (#X(#H#%2  3  .3   4   Didthetrialcourtcommiterrorinchargingcomparativefaultasitrelatedtothe (#( causesofactionfornuisanceandtrespass?#%&݌ )$) Ќ $ X44` X(#$     4.DidthetrialcourterrinexcludingvideosofferedinevidencebyAppellants? l*%*   5.Doestheweightoftheevidencepreponderateagainsttheverdict? R+&+   6.Didthetrialcourterrinawardingdiscretionarycosts? 8,', Ё -n(-    `     h StandardofReview  Ё    Ourreviewofthefindingsoffactinthiscaseislimited.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d)provides | inpertinentpart: Findingsoffactbyajuryincivilactionsshallbesetasideonlyifthereisno b materialevidencetosupporttheverdict.Whendeterminingwhetherthereissubstantial H evidencetosupporttheverdict,wemaynotweightheevidenceordecidewherethe . ~ preponderancelies.Wemust (1)takethestrongestlegitimateviewofalltheevidenceinfavor  d oftheverdict;(2)assumethetruthofallevidencethatsupportstheverdict;(3)allowall  J reasonableinferencestosustaintheverdict;and(4)discardall(countervailing)evidence.  0 Barnesv.GoodyearTireandRubberCo.,48S.W.3d698,704(Tenn.2000)(citingCrabtree    MasonryCo.v.C&RConstr.,Inc.,575S.W.2d4,5(Tenn.1978);Blackv.Quinn,646S.W.2d    437,43940(Tenn.App.1982)).    XQuestionsoflawarerevieweddenovowithoutapresumptionofcorrectness.Aliv. ^  Fisher,145S.W.3d557(Tenn.2004).Considerationofevidentiaryissuesislimitedtothose D  errorsthataffectasubstantialrightofaparty.Tenn.R.Evid.103(a). *z   X  Ӂ́XXXX     &  .  Discussion.X/  4/Ԍ , Ќ  XXXX  'L/  I.    Ӂ* XB.` hp x (#XB  X X  H.` hp x (#X(#H*F0  Appellantsassertthatthetrialcourterredbychargingbothtemporaryandpermanent t nuisanceandrequiringthemtoofferproofofboth.Appellantsarguethattheircomplaintonly Z allegedtemporarynuisanceandneveraskedfordamagesforapermanentnuisance.A @ temporarynuisanceisdefinedasonethat canbecorrectedbytheexpenditureoflaboror &v money.Patev.CityofMartin,614S.W.2d46,48(Tenn.1981).Appellantscontendthe  \ evidenceestablishedthatmoneyandlaborcouldlimitthetimeandextentofoperationsofthe B asphaltplantandrockquarryand,therefore,thetrialcourtshouldonlyhavegivenachargeon ( temporarynuisance.*F0!1݌  Ќ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  XH.` hp x (#X(#H*4  *45݌  Ќ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  XH.` hp x (#X(#H*6  Theparties,bytheirpleadings,makeuptheissuestoberesolvedbythecourt.Inthis   case,theAppelleesfiledanswersassertingthatAppellantsclaimsofnuisancewerebarredby p!  thestatuteoflimitations.Thisdefenseappliestoapermanentnuisance.Whenanuisanceis V"! temporaryandcontinuous,thecontinuationisanewoffenseentitlingaplaintifftorecover <#" damagesoccurringwithinthelimitationsperiod,eventhoughthenuisancehasexistedlonger "$r# thanthelimitationsperiod.Kindv.JohnsonCity,63Tenn.App.666,672,478S.W.2d63,66 %X $ ((1970).Whenanuisanceispermanent,thestatuteoflimitationscommencestorunfromthe %>!% timeofthecreationofthenuisance.Robertsonv.Cincinnati,NewOrleans&TexasP.Ry.Co., &$"& 207Tenn.272,339S.W.2d6(1960).Theissuesraisedbythepleadingsnecessarilyrequiredthe ' #' courttodeterminewhetherthenuisance,ifany,wastemporaryorpermanent.Thepartieswere (#( freetooffersuchevidenceastheychoseontheissues.Wefindnoerrorinthetrialcourts )$) charge.*66݌ l*%* Ќ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  X  H.` hp x (#X(#H*e<  ݁*e<2=݌̌ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  XH.` hp x (#X(#H*=  ݁*=g>݌̌ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  XH.` hp x (#X(#H*>  *>?݌ -n(- Ќ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  XH.` hp x (#X(#H*#@  *#@@݌  Ќ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  XH.` hp x (#X(#H*kA  *kA,B݌  Ќ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  X X  H.` hp x (#X(#H*B  II.*BC݌ | Ќ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  X X  H.` hp x (#X(#H*D  ݁*DD݌̌ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  X  H.` hp x (#X(#H*gE  AppellantsnextassertthattheissueofwhetherAppelleesoperationsconstituteda H temporaryorpermanentnuisancewasaquestionoflawtobedeterminedbythecourtandnotby . ~ thejury.InthecaseofCaldwellv.KnoxConcreteProductsInc.,54Tenn.App.393,391  d S.W.2d5(1964),theCourtofAppealsstated:*gE4F݌  J Ќ ! XX(#!  * XB.` hp x (#XB  X  H.` hp x (#X(#H*;H  ݁*;HI݌̌ ! XX(#!  G l<` * XB.` hp x (#XB  X   *I  Wealsoareoftheopinionthattheissueofwhetherthenuisance,iffoundto    exist,waspermanentortemporaryandconsequently,whethertheplaintiffs    causeofactionwasbarredbythethreeyearlimitationonactionstorecover   damagestorealproperty(T.C.A.28305)'  I H  1     'K  ,wasaquestionoffactforthe x  jury.*I)J݌ ^  Ќ X$ XX(#$    B.` hp x (#XBӁ  391S.W.2dat11.Thus,thetrialcourtappropriatelysubmittedtothejurytheissueofwhethera *z  nuisance,ifany,wastemporaryorpermanent. `   Ӂ̀  III    Ӂ    Appellantscomplainthatthetrialcourtcommittederrorinchargingcomparativefaultas  itrelatedtothecausesofactionfornuisanceandtrespass.EachoftheAppelleesallegedthe t defenseofcomparativefaultwithregardtobothpartiestothesuitandnonparties.Sincethe Z jurydeterminedthattheoperationsoftheAppelleesdidnotconstituteeitheranuisanceor @ trespass,thisissuerequiresnoindepthdiscussion.AsnotedbytheMiddleSectionoftheCourt &v ofAppeals,  \   $ X   ?( ` hp xX(#?  $P  Plaintiffsarguethatcomparativefaultisinapplicabletoanactionfor ( nuisance.NoTennesseeauthorityiscitedforsucharule,andthisCourtis  notdisposedtoinitiatesucharuleunderthecircumstancesofthiscase.$PcQ݌  Ќ X   ' X(#Xx'  ݁Blackwell,vWesterfall,No.01A019410CV00493,1995Tenn.App.LEXIS226(Tenn.Ct. p!  App.April7,1995). V"!    `     h   IV <#" Ё    Appellantsnextassertthetrialcourterredinexcludingvideosofferedinevidenceby %X $ Appellants.Itshouldbenotedthatpartsofthevideotapewerepresentedtothejury.Some %>!% portionswereexcludedbythetrialcourtonthefollowinggrounds:(1)Oralcommentaryon &$"& videotapewasmoreprejudicialthanprobative,and(2)perspectiverenderedbythecameras ' #' zoomlensmadetheallegednuisanceappearclosertoAppellantspropertythanwasactuallythe (#( case. )$)    Ӂ l*%*  X   ?( ` hp xX(#?GenerallyinTennessee,atrialcourtsrulingontheadmissibilityofevidence   iswithinthesounddiscretionofthetrialjudge.Further,trialcourtsare  accordedawidedegreeoflatitudeintheirdeterminationofwhethertoadmit | orexcludeevidence,evenifsuchevidencewouldberelevant.Atrialcourts b evidentiaryrulingwillonlybeoverturnedonappealuponashowingofabuse H ofdiscretion. . ~    E.` hp x (#XEӁ XH.` hp x (#X(#HDickeyv.McCord,63S.W.3e714,723(Tenn.App.2001)(citingOtisv.CambridgeMut.Fire  J Ins.Co.,850S.W.2d439,442(Tenn.1992)).Furthermore,Tennesseecourtshavelongheldthat  0 thetrialjudgeisgivengreatdiscretionindeterminingwhetheraphotograph(orvideo)is    admissibleintoevidence.Statev.Evans,838S.W.2d185,193(Tenn.1992).        Avideotapeissubjecttothesamescrutinyasaphotographindeterminingits x  admissibility.Cohen,Sheppeard,andPaine,TennesseeLawofEvidence4.01[18](4thed. ^  2000).Thevideotapemustberelevantandnotunfairlyprejudicialandmustbeatrueand D  accuratedepictionoftheeventsitrecorded.Id. *z        WefurthernotethatAppellantsmadenoofferofproofofanyexcludedvideotapes.An F appellatecourtwillnotreverseatrialcourtsrulingexcludingevidenceintheabsenceofan , offerofproof.Dickey,63S.W.3dat723(citingShepherdv.PerkinsBuilders,968S.W.2d832,  834(Tenn.App.1997)).Wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninexcludingthe  videotapes.    Ӂ  V. Z   Ӂ% X    %_  Appellantsassertthattheweightoftheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheverdict.The &v trialofthiscaseextendedoversixdaysandinvolvedthetestimonyof27witnessesandover200  \ exhibits.Appellantsgenerallytestifiedthattheoperationsofthedefendantscauseddust,noise, B blasting,vibration,andodorsthatcreatedanuisance.Thejuryfoundthatnonuisancewas ( createdbytheAppellees.Ourreviewoftheevidenceislimitedto%__݌  Ќ  X  XӁ X X   ?( ` hp xX(#?asearchoftherecordtoascertainifmaterialevidenceispresenttosupport   theverdict.Itmattersnotawhitwheretheweightorpreponderanceofthe p!  evidenceliesunderamaterialevidencereview.ThereviewingCourtmight V"! wellbeoftheopinionthattheevidencepreponderatesheavilyagainstthe <#" judgmentbelow,butunderthematerialevidencereview,ifmaterialevidence "$r# isfoundtosupportthejudgment,thatisevidencefromwhichatrieroffacts, %X $ ifhewereinclinedtobelieveit,couldreachtheconclusionreached,then,the %>!% judgmentbasedthereonmustbeaffirmed. &$"&  X   E.` hp x (#XEӁEstateofGlasgowv.Whittum,106S.W.3d25,2728(Tenn.App.2002). (#(   )$) % X    %f  AppellantRichardAndersontestifiedthathewasparticularlysensitivetonoise'  J H  2     'g#H  ,buthad   nothadnoiselevelsmeasured;norhadhehaddustanalyzedtodetermineitssource,ortestingto  measurevibrationorblasting.AppellantMaryLouKrauseadmittedthatshehadwhitelaundry | hangingoutsideonherclotheslinewithtrucksgoingbyandthequarryandtheasphaltplant b operating.AppellantJimmyPhillipstestifiedthatheonlygotdustwhenthequarrywasblasting H atthesametimethewindwasblowingfromthesouth;hewasunawareofanycitationsfor . ~ violationofstatestandardsonairemissionsorblastingorforwaterdischargesfromthequarry.  d WarrenKlutz,arealestateappraisercalledasawitnessbycounselfortheAppellants,testified  J thattheasphaltplantwasclosedthedayhevisitedtheproperties,butthequarrywasinoperation  0 andtherewasnoblastingorvibrationornoiseandnosignificanttrucktraffic.%fg݌    Ќ  X  % X    %l  %ll݌    Ќ  X  % X    %0m  JimmyWingfield,anenvironmentalscientistemployedbyAppelleestocollect   particulateairsamples,wascalledasawitnessbycounselforAppellants.Hetestifiedthatthe x  asphaltplantwasrunningwhilehewaspresentcollectingsamples,andhedidnothearitrunning ^  orsmellanyodor.RussellJamesFunkhouser,anaudiologisthiredbyoneoftheAppellees,was D  calledasawitnessbyAppellants;hetestifiedthatheheardnonoisethatcausedhimdiscomfort *z  fromtheasphaltplantthatwasinoperationwhenhewasconductingtests.%0mem݌ ` Ќ  X  X F % XX    %{p  DougRutherford,calledasawitnessbyAppellees,ownsahouseandlandadjacenttothe , rockquarryandistheclosestneighbortotheasphaltplant.Hetestifiedthatblastinganddust  fromtheoperationofthequarryisnotaproblem,thatodorfromtheasphaltplantdoesnot  botherhimandthatthenoiseisnotanuisancetohim.LawrenceOwens,alsoaneighborof  AmericanLimestone,testifiedthattrainsweretheonlynuisanceinthearea.%{pp݌ t Ќ  XX   Z % XX    %Is  Appelleescalledofficialsandemployeesofthecompaniestotestifythatthecompanies @ wereincompliancewithStateofTennesseeregulations.DavidR.Zeigler,aseismicvibration &v consultant,testifiedthatrecordsoverapproximatelysevenyearsshowedthatthevastmajorityof  \ blastingmeasurementswasbelowonequarterofthestatelimitsonblastingvibrationand80 B percentofthemeasurementswerebelowoneeighthofthestatelimits.CharlesWilliamson,also ( ageologist,seismicvibrationconsultant,testifiedthathiscompanyhadmonitoredblasting  operationsatthequarryforsixyearsandhadnevermeasuredgroundmovementinexcessofthe  statelimits.%Is~s݌   Ќ  XX   p!  % XX    %2w  Dr.JamesW.Theilin,aprofessorofaudiologyattheUniversityofTennessee,testified V"! thathetookthreesetsofmeasurementsatthehomesoftheAppellants.Onesetof <#" measurementswasmadeatnighttofindoutthequietestconditionsthatexisted,asecondsetwas "$r# madeonaSaturdaymorningwhentherewouldbetypicalroadtraffic.Athirdsetof %X $ measurementswasmadewhenthequarrywasinfulloperation.ComparedtotheSaturday %>!% measurements,thedecibelsrecordedwhenthequarrywasoperatingwereonedecibelhigherat &$"& theKrausehouse,fourdecibelshigheratthePhillipshouseandhalfadecibelloweratthe ' #' Andersonhouse.Dr.Theilintestifiedthatatnotimeduringthemeasurementsdidheexperience (#( anydiscomfortorinconvenienceinhearing.%2wgw݌ )$) Ќ  XX   l*%* % XX    %{  Otherwitnesses,whoownedandlivedonpropertynearoradjacenttotheoperationsof  theAppellees,contradictedtestimonyofAppellantsconcerninganuisanceandtestifiedthatthey  consideredAppelleestobegoodneighbors.%{{݌ | Ќ  XX  % XX    %D}  %D}y}݌ b Ќ  XX  % XX    %}  Appellantsassertionsconcerningthepreponderanceoftheevidencedonotaddressthe H standardofreviewapplicabletothiscase.Thetestimonynotedaboveclearlyestablishes . ~ materialevidencetosupporttheverdictofthejury.%} ~݌  d Ќ  XX  XӁ́  VI.      Ӂ    AppellantscomplainthatthetrialcourterredinawardingtwothirdsofAmerican   Limestonesrequesteddiscretionarycostsfor allreasonableandnecessarycourtreporterand x  experttestimonyexpenses.DecisionstoawardexpensesunderTenn.R.Civ.P.54.04(2)are ^  discretionary. Apartyisnotautomaticallyentitledtodiscretionarycostssimplybecauseit D  prevailed.However,courtsgenerallyawarddiscretionarycostsiftheyarereasonableandifthe *z  prevailingpartyhasfiledatimely,properlysupportedmotion.Scholzv.S.B.Intern.,Inc.,40 ` S.W.3d78,84(Tenn.App.2000)(internalcitationsomitted).Appellantsclaimthattwoofthe F originalplaintiffssettledtheirclaimsentirelyafteranofferofjudgmentwasmadeandthatall , theplaintiffssettledtheirclaimsforblastingdamagespriortothetrial.Expensesrelatedtothose  claimsshouldnotbeallowedasthoseclaimswerenottried.AmericanLimestonerespondsthat  theexpensesincurredanddetailedinitsmotionweredulyincurredinthepreparationofthecase  forthetrialthatdidtakeplaceandwerenotmateriallychangedbythesettlements.Thetrial t courtreducedtherequestedexpensesbyonethird.Appellantshavefailedtoshowtheaward Z constitutedanabuseofdiscretion. @   Ӂ́́XXXX     &  @  Conclusion@ X~Ԍ ( Ќ  XXXX  '% X    %\  ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmed,andthiscauseisremandedtotheTrialCourt  forcollectionofthecostsbelow.ThecostsonappealareassessedagainsttheAppellantsand   theirsurety.%\݌ p!  Ќ  X   V"! Ё́́   `     h   _________________________________ %>!%    `     h   HowellN.Peoples,SpecialJudge &$"& Ё́