Case Name: Gina WENTZ and Dennis Wentz, Appellants, v. O'FALLON COMMUNITY ATHLETIC CLUB, Defendant. City of O'Fallon, Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-09-12
Citations: 527 S.W.3d 891
Docket Number: No. ED 104679
Parties: Gina WENTZ and Dennis Wentz, Appellants, v. O’FALLON COMMUNITY ATHLETIC CLUB, Defendant City of O’Fallon, Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before James M. Dowd, C.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 527
Pages: 891–892

Head Matter:
Gina WENTZ and Dennis Wentz, Appellants, v. O’FALLON COMMUNITY ATHLETIC CLUB, Defendant City of O’Fallon, Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 104679
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FIVE.
Filed: September 12, 2017
FOR APPELLANT: Richard Anthony Gartner, Jason Richard Caudill, 220 Salt Lick Road, St. Peters, Missouri 63376.
FOR RESPONDENT: Katherine Christine Battisti, Stephen James Moore, Jessica Bolten Cozart, 7800 Forsyth Blvd, Suite 600, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.
Before James M. Dowd, C.J., Lawrence E. Mooney, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
This personal injury case arises out of an April 26, 2009 incident at the Ozzie Smith Sports Complex in O'Fallon, Missouri, in which Gina Wentz was struck in the head by an errant baseball while she observed a trophy presentation at the Complex. Wentz and her husband sued O'Fallon Community Athletic Club and the City of O'Fallon for negligence and a jury trial was held in the Circuit Court of St. Charles County. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Respondents, assessing 100% fault to Wentz. The trial court denied the Wentzes' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered judgment on the jury's general defense verdict.
In their first point on appeal, the Wentzes assert that the trial court erred by submitting the comparative fault instruction based on failure to keep a careful lookout offered by Respondents..because, according to the Wentzes, there was no substantial evidence to support this instruction. In their second point, the Wentzes contend that the trial court erred by denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).