Njoroge v. Auto Stop, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Njoroge v. Auto Stop, Inc.

561 S.W.3d 903

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 4, 2018

DocketNo. ED 106088

StatusPublished

This text of 561 S.W.3d 903 (Njoroge v. Auto Stop, Inc.) 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

Njoroge v. Auto Stop, Inc., 561 S.W.3d 903 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Peter Njoroge ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Auto Stop, *904Inc. ("Auto Stop"), holding that Joseph Pullaro ("Employee") was not acting in the course and scope of his employment with Auto Stop when an accident occurred that injured Appellant. Appellant filed a lawsuit against Employee and his employer, Auto Stop, based on the alleged negligence of Employee.

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

PER CURIAM

Peter Njoroge ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Auto Stop, *904Inc. ("Auto Stop"), holding that Joseph Pullaro ("Employee") was not acting in the course and scope of his employment with Auto Stop when an accident occurred that injured Appellant. Appellant filed a lawsuit against Employee and his employer, Auto Stop, based on the alleged negligence of Employee.

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)

561 S.W.3d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/njoroge-v-auto-stop-inc-moctapp-2018.