Case Name: Sarah Ladonna MARTIN, Surviving Spouse of Charles Martin, Deceased, Individually and as Natural Mother of A.M., A Minor, and Bryon Martin, and Brandy Chatfield, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SPARTAN LIGHT METAL PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2009-01-30
Citations: 280 S.W.3d 109
Docket Number: No. ED 91498
Parties: Sarah Ladonna MARTIN, Surviving Spouse of Charles Martin, Deceased, Individually and as Natural Mother of A.M., A Minor, and Bryon Martin, and Brandy Chatfield, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SPARTAN LIGHT METAL PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 280
Pages: 109–109

Head Matter:
Sarah Ladonna MARTIN, Surviving Spouse of Charles Martin, Deceased, Individually and as Natural Mother of A.M., A Minor, and Bryon Martin, and Brandy Chatfield, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SPARTAN LIGHT METAL PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant/Respondent.
No. ED 91498.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Jan. 30, 2009.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 10, 2009.
Application for Transfer Denied May 5, 2009.
Bosslet & O’Leary, Ltd., Robert Wm. Bosslet, Jr., Granite City, IL, Harlan, Harlan & Still, Russell C. Still, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.
Foland, Wickens, Eisfelder, Roper and Hofer, P.C., W. James Foland, W. Clayton Crawford, Jacquelin M. Sexton, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and MARY K. HOFF, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Sarah Ladonna Martin, surviving spouse of Charles Martin (Decedent), and her children, A.M., a minor, Bryon Martin, and Brandy Chatfield (collectively Plaintiffs), appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Spartan Light Metal Products, LLC, (Spartan) on Plaintiffs' petition alleging Decedent's death was caused by Spartan's negligence.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth our reasons for the order affirming the trial court's award of summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).