Affirming.
This is an appeal entered upon a verdict returned by nine of the jury in an action wherein the administrator of Virgil Hall sought to recover of the appellees $50,000 for the alleged negligent killing of his intestate.
The rule is thus stated in Wigginton v. Rule, 275 Mo. 412,205 S.W. 168, 180:
"After appellants by their conduct had invited this line of inquiry, they should not now be heard to urge it as error. One of the fundamental rules governing trial conduct is that self-invited error cannot be made the basis of complaint."
See, also, 68 C. J. p. 1210, sec. 1064, 4 C. J. p. 703, sec. 26141 and Rourke v. Holmes Street Railway Co., 221 Mo. 46,119 S.W. 1094, 133 Am. St. Rep. 468.
This jury had the right to believe some witnesses and to disbelieve others, and it may have believed this collision occurred at the place where the broken glass was found on the highway; that the truck was then traveling on the west side of the highway with its right wheels on the west shoulder of the road as its tracks indicated; that it was not going at an excessive rate of speed, and plaintiff's witness Paul (one of those in the Ford) so testified; that the lights of the truck blinded the occupants of the Ford as Paul said; then, if that is true, the continued operation of the Ford without slackening its speed or giving warning of its approach was improper as we held in Downing v. Baucom's Adm'x, 216 Ky. 108, 287 S.W. 362; and the jury may have believed that, as it approached the truck, the Ford swerved, ran across the road and into the truck as Burton *Page 38 testified. If the jury believed, as stated above, the verdict cannot be flagrantly against the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.