HLAVATY v. City of St. Louis

Missouri Court of Appeals

HLAVATY v. City of St. Louis

238 S.W.3d 698, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1356, 2007 WL 2832524

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 2, 2007

DocketED 88838

StatusPublished

This text of 238 S.W.3d 698 (HLAVATY v. City of St. Louis) 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

HLAVATY v. City of St. Louis, 238 S.W.3d 698, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1356, 2007 WL 2832524 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Hlavaty appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the City of St. Louis on her claims for personal injuries. We find that, even to the extent the trial court erred in admitting testimony of prior accidents, the error was not prejudicial. We further find that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow Hlavaty to inquire into subsequent remedial measures on re-direct examination of her expert witness.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Barbara Hlavaty appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of the City of St. Louis on her claims for personal injuries. We find that, even to the extent the trial court erred in admitting testimony of prior accidents, the error was not prejudicial. We further find that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow Hlavaty to inquire into subsequent remedial measures on re-direct examination of her expert witness.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 S.W.3d 698, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1356, 2007 WL 2832524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hlavaty-v-city-of-st-louis-moctapp-2007.