In Ratts v. State (1986), 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 183, Claimant, an A.B. Dick Printing Press repairman, was called to the offices of the Department of Transportation to fix a printing press. While there, the Claimant testified he was working on the machine and asked one of the department's employees to "run another master on the camera." The employee testified that he thought the Claimant had told him to "run more copies" and that after turning on the machine for the purpose of running more copies, the employee heard a funny noise and turned to find that Claimant's hand had been injured. The testimony of the Claimant and the employee of the Department of Transportation were in direct conflict. The Court stated that the State was not an insurer of the safety of invitees, but must only exercise reasonable care for their safety. (Fleischer v. State (1983), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 799.) The burden is upon Claimant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the State breached its duty of reasonable care. (Ratts, supra, at 185.) Under the circumstances extant in the Ratts case, the Court denied the claim and held that the Claimant had failed to prove that the State had breached its duty of reasonable care and that the Court could only speculate as to how Claimant's injury had occurred.