COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69070 JULIUS BACSA : ACCELERATED CASE : Plaintiff-Appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION MARTIN ENTERPRISES, ET AL. : : PER CURIAM Defendants-Appellees : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 26, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CV-258311 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: PAUL MANCINO, JR. (#0015576) 75 Public Square - Suite 1016 Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2098 For Defendants-Appellees: ANDREW M. WARGO (#0058464) 1300 Illuminating Building 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 FRANK SOLDAT (#0000806) 2060 Illuminating Building 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - 2 PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-appellant Julius Bacsa ("appellant") appeals the denial of his motion to tax as costs the fees of his expert witnesses. Appellant assigns the following error for review: I. THE COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR IN REFUSING TO TAX AS COSTS OF EXPERT WITNESS FEES OF PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SUCCESSFUL AT TRIAL. Finding the assignment of error to lack merit, we affirm. I. Appellant filed a complaint alleging he was physically assaulted by the defendants. The jury returned a verdict in appellant's favor and awarded him $32,750.00. Appellant then filed a motion to tax as costs the fees for expert witnesses and the transcribing of testimony of the expert witnesses which were used at trial. The motion was granted with regard to the fees for the court reporting service. The trial court denied the request to tax as costs the expert witness fees. II. In his assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying the costs associated with the testimony of his two expert witnesses. He avers the deposition of one witness was used at trial while the other witness testified in person. Civ.R. 54(D) states: Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute or in these rules, costs - 3 - 3 shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs. A trial court is afforded broad discretion in assessing costs and that ruling will not be overturned upon appeal absent a showing that it was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable. Howard v. Wills (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 133. In Vance v. Roedersheimer (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 553, the court found a local rule defining costs to be in conflict with the holding of Centennial Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 50. Centennial defined costs as: "This court has consistently limited the categories of expenses which qualify as 'costs.' 'Costs, in the sense the word is generally used in this state, may be defined as being the statutory fees to which officers, witnesses, jurors, and others are entitled for their services in an action *** and which the statutes authorize to be taxed and included in the judgment ***. *** Costs did not necessar- ily cover all of the expenses and they were distinguishable from fees and disbursements. They are allowed only by authority of statute ***.'" State, ex rel. Commrs. of Franklin County v. Guilbert (1907), 77 Ohio St. 333, 338-339 [83 N.E. 80, 81], quoted in part, with approval in Benda v. Fana (1967), 10 Ohio St.2d 259, 262-263 [39 O.O.2d 410, 413, 227 N.E.2d 197, 200-201]. "Today, we reaffirm the principal that '[t]he subject of costs is one entirely of statutory allowance and control.' State, ex rel. Michaels, v. Morse (1956), 165 Ohio St. 599, 607 [60 O.O. 531, 535, 138 N.E.2d 660, 666], quoted with approval in Sorin v. Bd. of Edn. (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 177, 179 [75 O.O.2d 224, 225, 347 N.E.2d 527, 529]. ***" Id., 69 Ohio St.2d at 50-51, 23 O.O.3d at 89, 430 N.E.2d at 926. - 4 - 4 Id. at 555. In Wiltsie v. Teamor (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 380, this court interpreted the holding of Vance to allow costs only when they are explicitly authorized by statute. The court disallowed deposition expenses of witnesses to be taxed as costs as there is no explicit statutory authorization to do so. Id. at 388. The transcribing and recording costs for expert witness depositions may be recoverable as costs if the depositions are introduced into evidence. Shipman v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 333. There is nothing in the record before this court to reflect how the depositions were used, if at all, at trial. The burden to provide the relevant portions of the transcript falls upon the appellant. App.R. 9(B). This court has nothing to pass upon for these expenses and must presume the validity of the trial court's ruling. See Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197. Any other fees associated with expert witnesses are not taxable costs against the nonprevailing party. Sadowski v. Monteleone (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 815. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the fees of appellant's witness fees as costs. Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 5 - 5 This cause is affirmed. It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JOHN T. PATTON, CHIEF JUSTICE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the Court and time period for review will begin to run. .