Kuellmer v. Mach

893 S.W.2d 398, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 290, 1995 WL 73370
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 21, 1995·No. No. 64330·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment based upon a jury verdict finding no negligence by defendant in a water-skiing accident in which plaintiff was injured. The only issue on appeal is the court’s refusal to admit into evidence a videotape made demonstrating aspects of water-skiing and recreating the accident in issue. The admission of the evidence was within the discretion of the trial court and we find no abuse of that discretion. Bailey v. Valtec Hydraulics, Inc., 748 S.W.2d 805 (Mo.App.1988) [1]; McPherson Redevelopment Corporation v. Watkins, 782 S.W.2d 690 (Mo.App.1989) [4]. We also find no prejudice to plaintiff as the videotape was cumulative to other evidence admitted. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Kuellmer v. Mach, 893 S.W.2d 398, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 290, 1995 WL 73370 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

893 S.W.2d 398 (Kuellmer v. Mach) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bailey v. Valtec Hydraulics, Inc.
748 S.W.2d 805 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)
McPherson Redevelopment Corp. v. Watkins
782 S.W.2d 690 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)