Case Name: Paula K. MUEHLING and John W. Muehling, Plaintiffs-Appellants. and Bi-State Development Agency, Intervening Plaintiff, v. MISSOURI ATHLETIC CLUB, Defendants-Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1996-12-10
Citations: 936 S.W.2d 176
Docket Number: No. 69664
Parties: Paula K. MUEHLING and John W. Muehling, Plaintiffs-Appellants. and Bi-State Development Agency, Intervening Plaintiff, v. MISSOURI ATHLETIC CLUB, Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 936
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
Paula K. MUEHLING and John W. Muehling, Plaintiffs-Appellants. and Bi-State Development Agency, Intervening Plaintiff, v. MISSOURI ATHLETIC CLUB, Defendants-Respondents.
No. 69664.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Dec. 10, 1996.
Francis X. Duda, Brian L. Daily, Anderson & Gilbert, Clayton, for plaintiffs-appellants.
James P. Lemonds, Richard J. Mehan, Holtkamp, Liese, Beckemeier & Childress, P.C., St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.
Before RHODES RUSSELL, P.J., and SIMON and KAROHL, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs, Paula K. Muehling and John W. Muehling appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of defendant, Missouri Athletic Club in a slip and fall action seeking damages for personal injuries suffered by Paula K. Muehling when she fell on the floor at Missouri Athletic Club, and for loss of consortium suffered by John W. Muehling. Plaintiffs alleged that Missouri Athletic Club permitted a slippery substance to remain on the floor of the Art Lounge Room which caused Paula K. Muehling to slip and fall injuring her back and, further as a result, husband incurred medical expenses for Paula K. Muehling, and lost her support, earnings and consortium. On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in excluding certain testimony of Paula K. Muehling and a witness, Patricia Nogar.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holding.