Knudsen v. Grindstaff

Missouri Court of Appeals

Knudsen v. Grindstaff

535 S.W.3d 757

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104665

StatusPublished

This text of 535 S.W.3d 757 (Knudsen v. Grindstaff) 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

Knudsen v. Grindstaff, 535 S.W.3d 757 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM-

Following a car accident, Michael Knudsen (“Appellant”) filed a petition alleging the negligence of Philip Grindstaff (“Employee”) and the vicarious liability, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention of Travelers Indemnity Company (“Employer”). Appellant alleged Employee was negligent in colliding into the rear of Appellant’s vehicle and that Employer was vicariously liable and negligent in entrusting Employee with the company vehicle and retaining Employee. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Employer and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Employee. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and the jury’s verdict. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

.The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM-

Following a car accident, Michael Knudsen (“Appellant”) filed a petition alleging the negligence of Philip Grindstaff (“Employee”) and the vicarious liability, negligent entrustment, and negligent retention of Travelers Indemnity Company (“Employer”). Appellant alleged Employee was negligent in colliding into the rear of Appellant’s vehicle and that Employer was vicariously liable and negligent in entrusting Employee with the company vehicle and retaining Employee. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Employer and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Employee. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order granting summary judgment and the jury’s verdict. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

.The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 S.W.3d 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knudsen-v-grindstaff-moctapp-2017.