Case ID: sw3d_535/html/0757-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM-", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael KNUDSEN, Appellant, v. Phillip GRINDSTAFF and The Travelers Indemnity Company, Respondents.
    No. ED 104665
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
    FILED: October 17, 2017
    Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied December 19, 2017
    
      FOR APPELLANT: Cynthia M. Hen-nessey, 425 North New Balias Road, Suite 280, St. Louis, MO 63141, Alexandra D. LaBarge, 5257 Oleatha Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63139.
    For Respondent Phillip Grindstaff: Thomas J. Magee, Kathleen Schlef Hamilton, Bradley Michael Zaffiri, 211 North Broadway, Ste. 2700, St. Louis, Missouri 63102.
    For Respondent The Travelers Indemnity Company: Seth G. Gausnell, James D, Ribaudo, .100 South Fourth Street, Suite 400, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-1821.
    Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.
   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).