Court Opinion

ID: 9767736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:24:38.415302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:32.372143
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer Cause to Supreme Court
ANDERSON, Judge.
In respondent’s motion for rehearing it is urged that the court overlooked certain testimony favorable to> plaintiff’s case which, if considered, would require us to hold that plaintiff made a case for the jury.
Plaintiff, on direct examination, testified that when she turned east off of Fifteenth Street there were automobiles parked in *738the south curb lane of Market Street in the area between the City Hall and Municipal Courts Building. She further testified that after she passed those cars she turned into the south curb lane and traveled eastwardly therein for almost a full block. However, on cross-examination, plaintiff testified that she entered the curb lane when about 30 or 35 feet from the Twelfth Street intersection.
Under this state of the record, plaintiff may not rely upon her testimony given on direct examination. Being a party to the cause, any statement made by plaintiff against her interest while on the witness stand must be taken as true in the absence of a showing that it was induced through mistake, misunderstanding, or lack of definite recollection. Partney v. Agers, 238 Mo.App. 764, 187 S.W.2d 743; Steele v. Kansas City Southern R. Co., 265 Mo. 97, 175 S.W. 177; Hayes v. S. S. Kresge Co,, Mo.App., 100 S.W.2d 325; McCoy v. Home Oil & Gas Co., Mo.App., 60 S.W.2d 715; De Lorme v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.App., 61 S.W.2d 247; Madden v. Red Line Service, Mo.App., 76 S.W.2d 435. Plaintiff made no attempt to explain away the admissions made during the cross-examination.
The motion for rehearing or to transfer cause to the Supreme Court is overruled.
RUDDY, P. J., and MATTHES, concur.