Case Name: Craig ABKEMEIER, Appellant, v. Gary PORTER, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-07-28
Citations: 971 S.W.2d 937
Docket Number: No. 73533
Parties: Craig ABKEMEIER, Appellant, v. Gary PORTER, Respondent.
Judges: Before CRAHAN, P.J., RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J. and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 971
Pages: 937–938

Head Matter:
Craig ABKEMEIER, Appellant, v. Gary PORTER, Respondent.
No. 73533.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
July 28, 1998.
Jennifer J. Finley, St. Louis, for appellant.
Susan M. Moore, Joan B. Bernstein, Sam P. Rynearson, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for respondent.
Before CRAHAN, P.J., RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J. and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Craig Abkemeier (Tenant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis granting summary judgment to Gary Porter (Landlord). Tenant instituted the action to recover damages for the injuries he sustained when one of the concrete stairs leading up to his rental duplex collapsed underneath him. Tenant argues the trial court erred in granting Landlord's motion for summary judgment because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the stairs leading up to the two family duplex were part of the common area of the leased premises; because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Landlord retained significant control of the leased prem ises; and because Tenant's motion for a new trial and/or motion to reconsider should have been granted because the testimony in Landlord's deposition constitutes newly discovered evidence and supports Tenant's argument.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The judgment of the trial court granting the motion for summary judgment is affirmed. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, a memorandum opinion has been provided to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).