Opinion
C.A. No. 02C-04-153-FSS.
Submitted: July 15, 2005.
Decided: August 30, 2005.
Mr. Roland Anderson, Wilmington, DE.
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This decides your motion for reargument, which followed the court's denial of your request for a free transcript. Initially, the court denied the request for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Your case is on appeal. The basis for the court's initial decision was incorrect. The court has jurisdiction to order a transcript. Nevertheless, you have not justified the court's forcing the public to pay for a transcript at your request.
Supreme Court Rule 9(i).
This is civil case. You sued Ms. Silicki after she caused a collision in which you were injured. At your trial, you were represented by experienced counsel. The jury found in your favor, but it only awarded you nominal damages, $100. Your trial attorney then moved for costs and for additur or a new trial. The motion for costs was granted, but the motion for additur or a new trial was denied. You filed an appeal, without counsel.
Although you are indigent, you do not have an absolute right to a transcript at the public's expense. Here, you are seeking money damages from a private individual. A jury heard your evidence and decided that although Ms. Silicki's negligence proximately caused some injury to you, the harm was slight. The jury obviously did not think your chiropractic treatment was justified. The trial judge, apparently, was equally unimpressed with your claim.
If you wish to keep pursuing this matter, hoping that Ms. Silicki will eventually have to pay you more money, that is your choice. This court, however, sees no reason to require taxpayers to underwrite your continuing efforts. Of course, you are free to raise this decision as part of your pending appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, your motion for reargument is DENIED.