
    Ivan MASTNAK, and Ervin and Marcia Mastnak, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant/Appellant. and City of St. Louis, Defendant/Respondent.
    No. 72938.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    June 2, 1998.
    Robbye Hill Toft, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.
    J.W. Gabriel, Christopher A Wagner, St. Louis, for plaintiffs/respondents.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

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 plaintiffs car approaching the intersection, (2) there was no evidence to submit plaintiffs 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).  