Tri-State Transit Co. v. Moore

• Decision Date: 20 May 1940
• Docket Number: 34099
• Citation: 196 So. 231,188 Miss. 722
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: TRI-STATE TRANSIT CO. v. MOORE

196 So. 231

188 Miss. 722

TRI-STATE TRANSIT CO. v. MOORE

No. 34099

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A

May 20, 1940

APPEAL from circuit court, Lauderdale county, HON. ARTHUR G. BUSBY Judge

Personal injury action by J. J. Moore against Tri-State Transit Company. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed on defendant's appeal. On suggestion of error. Suggestion of error overruled. For former decision per curiam see 195 So 696.

Suggestion of Error Overruled.

Bailey & Gillespie, of Meridian, for appellant.

M. V B. Miller, of Meridian, for appellee.

OPINION

Griffith, J.

The judgment in this case was affirmed on a former day without a written opinion, because we saw no reversible error in the instructions when read as a whole; and as to the principal contention that the verdict was without the substantial support of believable evidence, we could not say with entire confidence that the point was well taken, which we must be able to do before we may interfere with a verdict on the facts. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Van Smith (Miss.), 196 So. 230.

Appellee claims that he was struck and injured by a passenger bus of appellant sometime before daylight of the morning in question. Appellee says that he was standing eight or nine feet to the north of the concrete pavement, when the bus, traveling at a high rate, suddenly swerved away from the pavement, and struck him. Such a statement, if it stood alone, would put a heavy, if not unbearable, strain on credulity, --in fact, it might be met with derision; but it was explained and shown that a cow had crossed the road as the bus was approaching, and, at the time of the alleged injury, was at or near the south side, of the pavement at the point opposite the place where appellee was standing; and the jury could, with reason, conclude that the bus driver, having his attention thus definitely directed to the cow, had made, the swerve in order to be certain to miss her.

There are other features in the testimony, aside from the one just mentioned, which raise a grave suspicion that the versions given by appellee's witness are not in accord with the truth; but stories containing unusual or surprising assertions may sometimes carry within themselves considerable evidence of their integrity, for if fabricated in their entirety, the fabrication would probably have been better done. Appellant puts this question. Does not the testimony that is unbelievable in...