Ivan Mastnak, and Ervin and Marcia Mastnak, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Union Electric Company, Defendant/Appellant, and City of St. Louis, Defendant/Respondent.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Ivan Mastnak, and Ervin and Marcia Mastnak, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Union Electric Company, Defendant/Appellant, and City of St. Louis, Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: 72938 Handdown Date: 06/02/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Anna C. Forder Counsel for Appellant: Robbye Hill Toft Counsel for Respondent: J.W. Gabriel and Christopher A. Wagner Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER In this jury tried case involving a motor vehicle collision at an intersection, the jury returned a verdict of $78,950 for plaintiff. It assessed 60% fault to Union Electric and 40% fault to the City. Union Electric appeals raising three points. The first two relate to the sufficiency of the evidence. It alleges the trial court's judgment should be reversed because (1) there was no evidence its driver could see a stop sign or could see plaintiff's car approaching the intersection, (2) there was no evidence to submit plaintiff's verdict director on its driver's failure to keep a lookout, and (3) its affirmative converse jury instruction for justification or excuse should have been given. We affirm. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed

pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.