Kuellmer v. Mach

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kuellmer v. Mach

893 S.W.2d 398, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 290, 1995 WL 73370

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1995

DocketNo. 64330

StatusPublished

This text of 893 S.W.2d 398 (Kuellmer v. Mach) 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

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

Pincite

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

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

893 S.W.2d 398, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 290, 1995 WL 73370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuellmer-v-mach-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack