Case Name: Elizabeth A. GRUPP, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, and State of Missouri, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-04-21
Citations: 965 S.W.2d 959
Docket Number: No. WD 54272
Parties: Elizabeth A. GRUPP, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, and State of Missouri, Respondents.
Judges: Before EDWIN H. SMITH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and ELLIS, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 965
Pages: 959–959

Head Matter:
Elizabeth A. GRUPP, Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, and State of Missouri, Respondents.
No. WD 54272.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
April 21, 1998.
Danieal H. Miller, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Alana M. Barragan-Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondents.
Before EDWIN H. SMITH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and ELLIS, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Elizabeth A. Grupp filed suit against the State of Missouri and its Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") to recover damages for injuries suffered as a result of a bicycle accident in Katy Trail State Park in Boone County, Missouri. The State and the DNR moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion. Ms. Grupp argues the trial court erred in granting the motion because genuine issues of material fact remain in the case. Her arguments focus on whether the respondents are shielded from liability under the theory of sovereign immunity or under the Missouri Recreational Use Statute. The respondents contend that the trial court properly granted their motion because the Missouri Recreational Use Statute states that no duty of care is owed to persons in the position of Ms. Grupp, because she was bicycling in a State Park for recreational purposes and without charge. The respondents further contend there is no exception which applies to create a duty.
Perceiving no jurisprudential value in a published opinion, we enter this summary order. The parties have been provided a memorandum opinion explaining our decision.
The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).