Case Name: Evelyn GOODLOW, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. CLAYTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-08-31
Citations: 12 S.W.3d 331
Docket Number: No. ED 73854
Parties: Evelyn GOODLOW, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. CLAYTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 12
Pages: 331–332

Head Matter:
Evelyn GOODLOW, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. CLAYTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 73854.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Aug. 31, 1999.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 20, 1999.
Case Transferred to Supreme Court Nov. 23, 1999.
Case Retransferred to Court of Appeals Feb. 22, 2000.
Original Opinion Reinstated March 22, 2000.
Beth C. Boggs, Robert P. Sass, Boggs, Backer & Bates, L.L.C., St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.
Gary K. Burger, Jr., Thomas J. Prebil, William A. Brasher, Brasher Law Firm, L.C., St. Louis, for plaintiff/respondent.
Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Clayton Development Corporation (Corporation) appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Evelyn Goodlow in her action for actual and punitive damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall when the balcony attached to the exterior of her apartment collapsed. She leased an apartment in a building owned by Corporation. Our Supreme Court accepted transfer and retransferred for reconsideration of the issues raised in the application for transfer in light of Rodriguez vs. Suzuki Motor Corporation, et al., Deborah Dubis, 996 S.W.2d 47 (Banc 1999).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.