Case ID: sw2d_954/html/0581-01.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

Joseph A. TALLO and Diana Tallo, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Johnny W. SEAY and Megan L. Purcell, Defendants, and Grand Lindell Partnership, Inc. d/b/a Billiken Bench Club, Defendant/Respondent.
    No. 72032.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Sept. 30, 1997.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 30, 1997.
    Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 25, 1997.
    Ray A. Gerritzen (Tallo), St. Louis, for appellant.
    A Stephen Pemoud (Grand Lindell Partnr.), John Kemppainen, Jr. (Seay), Jerry R. Wilding (Purcell), St. Louis, for respondent.
    Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs were injured in a three-vehicle accident. They sued the drivers of both of the other cars and the proprietors of a bar they alleged had sold liquor to one of the drivers while he was obviously intoxicated. Grand Lindell Partnership, Inc. (“Grand Lin-dell”), the defendant bar owner, moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim against it in that plaintiffs failed to allege that the bar owner was convicted of selling alcohol to a person obviously intoxicated as required by section 537.053.3 RSMo 1994. The trial court granted Grand Lindell’s motion and the plaintiffs filed a timely appeal.

No error of law appears. An opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only. This memorandum sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).