Elliott v. PHB Realty Co., LLC

Missouri Court of Appeals

Elliott v. PHB Realty Co., LLC

473 S.W.3d 726, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1156

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 2015

DocketWD 78145 (Consolidated with WD 78569)

StatusPublished

This text of 473 S.W.3d 726 (Elliott v. PHB Realty Co., LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elliott v. PHB Realty Co., LLC, 473 S.W.3d 726, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1156 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM: ,

Kay Elliot appeals the trial .court’s grant of summary judgment to Janet Rao, PHB Realty Company, LLC (“PHB”), and Aspen Homebuilders, LLC (“Aspen”) on her action in premises liability and ordinary negligence. In her first point on appeal, Ms. Elliot contends, that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment .to Janet Rao and PHB based on its finding that the defendants owed no .duty to Ms. Elliott because there was substantial evidence (1) that Ms. Rao and PHB owed a duty of ordinary care to Ms. Elliott, (2) that their conduct was negligent, (3) that the dangers in the home were not open and obvious, and (4) that even if Ms. Elliott should have known hot to enter the home, comparative fault rendered summary judgment for Ms. Rao and PHB improper. In her second point on appeal, Ms. Elliott argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Aspen based on its finding that Aspen owed Ms. Elliott no duty because (1) she was not a trespasser, (2) the home was not reasonably safe, '(3) Aspen was negligent, (4) the dangers of the home were not open and obvious, and (5) even if Ms. Elliott should have known not to enter the home, comparative fault rendered summary judgment for Aspen improper. Because a published opinion would have :no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM: ,

Kay Elliot appeals the trial .court’s grant of summary judgment to Janet Rao, PHB Realty Company, LLC (“PHB”), and Aspen Homebuilders, LLC (“Aspen”) on her action in premises liability and ordinary negligence. In her first point on appeal, Ms. Elliot contends, that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment .to Janet Rao and PHB based on its finding that the defendants owed no .duty to Ms. Elliott because there was substantial evidence (1) that Ms. Rao and PHB owed a duty of ordinary care to Ms. Elliott, (2) that their conduct was negligent, (3) that the dangers in the home were not open and obvious, and (4) that even if Ms. Elliott should have known hot to enter the home, comparative fault rendered summary judgment for Ms. Rao and PHB improper. In her second point on appeal, Ms. Elliott argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Aspen based on its finding that Aspen owed Ms. Elliott no duty because (1) she was not a trespasser, (2) the home was not reasonably safe, '(3) Aspen was negligent, (4) the dangers of the home were not open and obvious, and (5) even if Ms. Elliott should have known not to enter the home, comparative fault rendered summary judgment for Aspen improper. Because a published opinion would have :no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 S.W.3d 726, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-phb-realty-co-llc-moctapp-2015.