Plaintiff’s action is for damages resulting from a fall from one of defendant’s street cars in Kansas City. He charges negligencе in defendant starting the car suddenly while he was in the act of gеtting aboard, whereby he was thrown to the street. He recovered judgment in the trial court.
Plaintiff was a witness in his own behalf and tеstified that the car tracks ran east and west on Central street and that the car from which he fell was an east bound car. He stated that he stood near the track facing the north, with his suit case and a Masonic sword in a leather scabbard in his left hand. That he ear came up and stoppеd and he approached it fac
When a verdict is for the plaintiff, if it is supported by believable testimony, we will uphold it notwithstanding there may he testimony to the contrary given by worthy and reputable witnesses. But if the plaintiff’s deliberate account of the matter is clearly contrary to natural law—contrary to what is called physiсal facts—we will refuse to credit it. [Scroggins v. Met. St. Ry. Co.,
Counsel have made suggestions as tо plaintiff’s position and what he might have done, etc., which аre not found in the evidence. We find we cannot support the judgment without making a precedent for allowing credit to statements of a litigant which are opposed to common knowledge and natural law.
■ The judgment is reversed.