Case Name: Alfonso NUNOZ, Respondent, v. Kevin HINKLE, Defendant, Direct Messenger, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-08-09
Citations: 172 S.W.3d 448
Docket Number: No. WD 64349
Parties: Alfonso NUNOZ, Respondent, v. Kevin HINKLE, Defendant, Direct Messenger, Appellant.
Judges: Before RONALD R. HOLLIGER, P.J., ROBERT G. ULRICH and JOSEPH M. ELLIS, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 172
Pages: 448–448

Head Matter:
Alfonso NUNOZ, Respondent, v. Kevin HINKLE, Defendant, Direct Messenger, Appellant.
No. WD 64349.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Aug. 9, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 4, 2005.
Kevin O’Neil Murphy, Overland Park, KS, for Appellant, Direct Messenger.
John E. Franke, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.
Kathleen M. Hagen, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.
Before RONALD R. HOLLIGER, P.J., ROBERT G. ULRICH and JOSEPH M. ELLIS, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Direct Messenger Service, Inc. appeals from the order of the trial court granting Alfonso Nunoz a new trial on his claims of negligence and negligence per se. It contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on improper closing argument because the argument was justified by evidence in the record, a fair retort of Mr. Nunoz's case, and an isolated comment that did not affect the outcome of the trial. The order of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).