Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fried v. Tefft
Citations: 688 N.E.2d 45; 116 Ohio App. 3d 343Docket: No. 70661.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; December 29, 1996; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Plaintiffs Larry C. and Patricia Fried appeal the trial court's denial of their motion for the court to cover expenses related to playing videotaped depositions during their malpractice trial against Dr. Melvin Tefft, Dr. Patrick Higgins, Dr. Gene Barnett, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and Siemans Corporation. The key issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in not authorizing payment of these costs. The Frieds notified the court pretrial that they required equipment for presenting videotaped testimony, which they subsequently included as part of their case. After the jury ruled in favor of the defendants and assessed costs against the plaintiffs, the Frieds filed a motion under C.P.Sup.R. 12(D) requesting that the court bear the costs of the videotape playbacks. The trial court denied this request. The Ohio Supreme Court has established that expenses related to videotaped depositions are governed by C.P.Sup.R. 12(D), which clearly states that the court should bear the cost of playing such depositions at trial. Previous cases, including State ex rel. Williams v. Colasurd and Friday v. Rice, support this interpretation. The appellate court concluded that the trial court should have assessed these costs to the court rather than to the plaintiffs. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, sustaining the Frieds' assignment of error and clarifying that the costs associated with the playback of videotaped depositions should be borne by the court. The decision was concurred by JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J. and KARPINSKI, J.