party claims error in Missouri

2002Farley v. Johnny Londoff Chevrolet, Inc., 673 S.W.2d 800, 804 (Mo.App.1984).

1996“On appeal, when a party claims error because the trial court denied him a new trial, the party ordinarily must have made a proper and timely objection to the claimed error to preserve it for review....” Farley v. Johnny Londoff Chevrolet, Inc., 673 S.W.2d 800, 804 (Mo.App.1984).

2008W.D.2002)(citing Rules 78.01 and 78.08); Beer v. Martel, 332 Mo. 53 , 55 S.W.2d 482, 484 (1932). ‘“On appeal, when a party claims error because the trial court denied that party a new trial, the party ordinarily must have made a proper and timely objection to the claimed error to preserve it for review; but, when, as *637 here, a party claims error because the trial court granted the opposing party a new trial, the opposing party need not have made an objection to the error upon which the trial court granted a new trial.’ ” Pasalich, 89 S.W.3d at 562 (citation omitted)(emphasis original); see

2000As Steward v. Goetz, 945 S.W.2d 520 (Mo.App.1997), set out the rule: “On appeal when a party claims error because the trial court denied that party a new trial, the party ordinarily must have made a proper and timely objection to the claimed error to preserve it for review; but, when, as here, a party claims error because the trial court granted the opposing party a new trial, the opposing party need not have made an objection to the error upon which the trial court granted a new trial.

2008W.D.2002)(citing Rules 78.01 and 78.08); Beer v. Martel, 332 Mo. 53 , 55 S.W.2d 482, 484 (1932). ‘“On appeal, when a party claims error because the trial court denied that party a new trial, the party ordinarily must have made a proper and timely objection to the claimed error to preserve it for review; but, when, as *637 here, a party claims error because the trial court granted the opposing party a new trial, the opposing party need not have made an objection to the error upon which the trial court granted a new trial.’ ” Pasalich, 89 S.W.3d at 562 (citation omitted)(emphasis original); see

2008W.D.2002)(citing Rules 78.01 and 78.08); Beer v. Martel, 332 Mo. 53 , 55 S.W.2d 482, 484 (1932). ‘“On appeal, when a party claims error because the trial court denied that party a new trial, the party ordinarily must have made a proper and timely objection to the claimed error to preserve it for review; but, when, as *637 here, a party claims error because the trial court granted the opposing party a new trial, the opposing party need not have made an objection to the error upon which the trial court granted a new trial.’ ” Pasalich, 89 S.W.3d at 562 (citation omitted)(emphasis original); see

2023Thus, as we explain in our ruling, the trial court’s ruling rests on a completely inaccurate foundation. 6 “On appeal, when a party claims error because the trial court denied that party a new trial, the party ordinarily must have made a proper and timely objection to the claimed error to preserve it for review; but, when, as here, a party claims error because the trial court granted the opposing party a new trial, the opposing party need not have made an objection to the error upon which the trial court granted a new trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (Pasalich, 89 S.W.3d at 562 )

2008W.D.2002)(citing Rules 78.01 and 78.08); Beer v. Martel, 332 Mo. 53 , 55 S.W.2d 482, 484 (1932). ‘“On appeal, when a party claims error because the trial court denied that party a new trial, the party ordinarily must have made a proper and timely objection to the claimed error to preserve it for review; but, when, as *637 here, a party claims error because the trial court granted the opposing party a new trial, the opposing party need not have made an objection to the error upon which the trial court granted a new trial.’ ” Pasalich, 89 S.W.3d at 562 (citation omitted)(emphasis original); see

1987Worley v. Tucker Nevils, Inc., 503 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Mo. banc 1973); Gottlieb v. Szajnfeld, 550 S.W.2d 936, 937 (Mo.App.1977).

1987Worley v. Tucker Nevils, Inc., 503 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Mo. banc 1973); Gottlieb v. Szajnfeld, 550 S.W.2d 936, 937 (Mo.App.1977).

1984Beer v. Martel, 332 Mo. 53 , 55 S.W.2d 482, 485 (1932); Greenwell v. Huffman, 506 S.W.2d 28, 31 (Mo.App.1974); Raines v. Small, 169 S.W.2d 102 , 105 (Mo.App.1943). 3 *805 Plaintiff also contends that Boumis, as an employee of defendant Londoff, was more available to Londoff and, therefore, in closing argument, plaintiff’s counsel could argue an adverse interest from Lon-doff’s failure to call Boumis as a witness.