Atley v. Williams
| Citation | 472 S.W.2d 867 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 33920,33920 |
| Parties | Barbara ATLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George WILLIAMS et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Arthur L. Swinnerton, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Aubuchon & Walsh by Ross G. Lavin, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.
CLEMENS, Commissioner.
The issue here: Was plaintiff's favorable testimony robbed of its probative force by her contradictory statements on cross examination and in her deposition? We say no and reverse the trial court's order directing a verdict against plaintiff.
Plaintiff sued defendant taxicab owners for damages arising from a collision when their taxicab made a U-turn into the path of plaintiff's automobile. The trial court found plaintiff had not made a submissible case and directed a verdict against her. Plaintiff appeals.
The collision occurred on a dark, rainy night on Broadway in St. Louis. Plaintiff was driving north at 25 miles per hour in the lane nearest the center line. Defendants' taxicab was then parked facing north in the right-hand curb lane, in the process of taking on a passenger. As to defendants' liability:
Plaintiff testified:
Plaintiff added that the taxicab driver was then looking in the other direction, over his right shoulder. Plaintiff braked and slid but the front end of her car struck the left side of the cab broadside.
Plaintiff's passenger, her daughter, testified she first saw the cab when it was a few feet away, headed west across Broadway, and that the taxi driver was then facing away from her. The investigating police officer quoted defendants' driver as saying he was making a 'left U-turn.'
This testimony, standing alone, was substantial evidence of defendants' negligence. Defendants tacitly concede this but contend other testimony by plaintiff was so 'contradictory and inconsistent with regard to material facts' that it is 'devoid of probative value.' Defendants point first to plaintiff's trial testimony on cross examination and next to her deposition testimony. These in turn.
The rule on destructive testimony is stated in Ringeisen v. City of St. Louis, Mo.App., 238 S.W.2d 57(2): We emphasize the qualification that the contradiction must concern a vital question in the case. Boehm v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 368 S.W.2d 361(1).
To invoke this rule defendants cite their cross examination of plaintiff: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vaeth v. Gegg
...some vital question in the case and must be so contradictory and without explanation as to preclude reliance thereon. Atley v. Williams, Mo.App., 472 S.W.2d 867, 869(1); Boehm v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo., 368 S.W.2d 361. The court must consider the testimony as a whole and it is re......
-
State v. Burns, WD
...of witnesses. As explicated in Amish v. Walnut Creek Development, Inc., 631 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Mo.App.1982), citing Atley v. Williams, 472 S.W.2d 867, 870 (Mo.App.1971), "[t]he rule concerning destructive contradictions on which defendant relies is applicable only to the respective elements o......
-
State v. Lawrence
...49 S.W.2d 1065, 1073 (1932). Otherwise the inconsistencies in plaintiff's testimony are for the jury to resolve." Atley v. Williams, 472 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Mo.App.1971). Here Barbara's testimony was not so inconsistent as to lack probative force. Never did she vacillate from the identificatio......
-
Moore v. Missouri-Nebraska Exp., Inc.
...a deposition. Those are merely for impeachment, for the jury's consideration in weighing the party's credibility." Atley v. Williams, 472 S.W.2d 867, 870 (Mo.App.1971). E. An essential element in an action for fraudulent misrepresentation is the establishment that the one defrauded "relied ......