COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                         COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                             NO. 70661
                                   :
LARRY C. FRIED, ET AL.             :
                                   :       JOURNAL ENTRY
          Plaintiffs-Appellants    :
                                   :            and
     -vs-                          :
                                   :          OPINION
                                   :
MELVIN TEFFT, M.D., ET AL.         :
                                   :
          Defendants-Appellees     :
                                   :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT                     DECEMBER 19, 1996       
OF DECISION:
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           Civil appeal from
                                   Common Pleas Court
                                   Case No. 256127
JUDGMENT:                          Reversed.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:            __________________________
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs-Appellants:         For Defendants-Appellees:
MICHAEL T. MURRAY, ESQ.            KRIS H. TREU, ESQ.
WILLIAM H. BARTLE, ESQ.            Arter & Hadden
Murray & Murray Company            1100 Huntington Building
P. O. Box 19                       925 Euclid Avenue
111 E. Shoreline Drive             Cleveland, Ohio  44115-1475
Sandusky, Ohio  44870
                                -2-
                                -3-
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.: 
     Plaintiffs-appellants,  Larry  and  Patricia Fried,  appeal  a
decision from the trial  court denying their motion for  payment of
fees associated with the playback of a videotaped deposition at the
trial of their malpractice action against defendants-appellees, Dr.
Melvin  Tefft,  Dr. Patrick  Higgins,  Dr. Gene  Barnett, Cleveland
Clinic Foundation, and Siemans Corporation.   The Frieds assign the
following error for our review:
          THE TRIAL  COURT ERRED  IN DENYING  PLAINTIFFS'
          MOTION TO  HAVE THE  COURT PAY  THE EXPENSE  OF
          PLAYING VIDEOTAPED TESTIMONY AT TRIAL.
     After reviewing the  record and the arguments  of the parties,
we  reverse the  decision of the  trial court.   The apposite facts
follow.
     The Frieds filed a malpractice  action against several doctors
and the Cleveland Clinic.  In  their pretrial statement, the Frieds
notified  the  trial  court  that  they would  need  equipment  for
presenting videotaped trial testimony.  As  part of their case, the
Frieds  presented the  videotaped deposition  testimony of  several
physicians.  At the  end of the trial, the jury  returned a verdict
in favor of the defendants.  Costs were assessed to the plaintiffs.
However, the Fried's filed a motion under C.P. Sup. R. 12(D) asking
the trial court to pay the costs  of the videotaped playbacks.  The
trial court denied the motion.  This appeal followed.
     The  Ohio  Supreme  Court   has  recognized  that   videotaped
depositions  are  governed by  C.P. Sup.R.  12(D).   State  ex rel.
Williams  v. Colasurd (1995),  71 Ohio St.3d  642, 645.    See also
                                -4-
Friday v. Rice (1987), 38 Ohio App.3d  113, 114.  Under C.P. Sup.R.
12(D)(1)(c), the expense of playing a videotape deposition at trial
shall be borne by the court.   See Semenas v. Republic Steel  Corp.
(1985),  29 Ohio  App.3d 237,  238; Siders  v.  Reynoldsburg School
Dist. (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 173, 198.
     In  Friday,  the court  ruled that  the  expense of  playing a
videotaped deposition at trial could not be assessed as court costs
to be paid by the plaintiff.
          Rule   12  of   the  Supreme  Court   Rules  of
          Superintendence for Courts of Common Pleas sets
          forth the parameters  for videotaped  testimony
          in  evidence   in  the  common   pleas  courts.
          Section (D)  discusses the costs  of videotaped
          proceedings  and,  in  particular, C.P.  Sup.R.
          12(D)(1)(c) states:   "The  expense of  playing
          the videotape recording at trial shall be borne
          by the court."  Given the clear and unambiguous
          language of  C.P. Sup.R.  12(D)(1)(c), we  must
          conclude that  the trial court  properly should
          have  assessed   the  costs   of  playing   the
          videotaped deposition not to plaintiff, but  to
          the court itself.
Friday at 113.
     We find that C.P. Sup.R. 12(D)(1)(c) applies to the videotaped
depositions in  this  case.   Accordingly, we  sustain the  Frieds'
assignment of error and reverse the decision of the trial court.
     Judgment reversed.
                                -5-
     This cause is reversed.
     It is, therefore,  considered that said appellants  recover of
said appellees their costs herein.
     It is ordered that a special mandate  be sent to said 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.
Exceptions.
JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J., and
KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR.     
                                      PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON
                                              JUDGE 
     N.B.  This entry  is an announcement of the  court's decision.
See App.R. 22(B),  22(D) and 26(A);  Loc.App.R. 27.  This  decision
will be journalized  and will become the judgment and  order of the
court  pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration
with supporting brief, per  App.R. 26(A), is filed within  ten (10)
days of the announcement of the court's decision.  The time  period
for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the
journalization  of  this court's  announcement  of decision  by the
.