
    “JERKS” OF ELECTRIC CARS AN INCIDENT OF TRAVEL.
    Circuit Court for Hamilton County.
    The Cincinnati Traction Company v. Mary Brogan.
    Decided, February 8, 1913.
    
      Negligence — In the Operation of Electric Railway Oars — “Jerks” Where Not Due to Defects 'in the Track or Oareless Operation- Not Chargeable to the Company.
    
    Evidence of a “jerk” in the movement of an electric car does not establish négligencé where not shown to have been due to a defect • in the track or careless handling of the car, even though a witness . .. described the jerk complained of as “terrible.”
    
      Miller Outcall, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Kramer & Bellman, contra.
    Smith, P. J.; Swing, J. and Jones, J., concur.
   "We are'of the opinion that the evidence in the above action does not establish negligence upon the part of plaintiff in error in the 'operation of its car at the time the accident complained of occurred.

“The mere fact that a car gives a sudden movement when starting or stopping, is entirely consistent with the supposition that it was managed in a careful and prudent manner and does not raise a presumption of negligence.” Booth on Street Railways, Section 250.
“The possibility of an electric car giving a jerk is an incident of travel which every passenger must expect. To make out a case of negligence on the part of a defendant railway company in such a case the plaintiff must go further and introduce evidence that the jerk in question was due to a defect in the track or to the negligence in the operation of the car,”. McGann v. Boston Elevated Railway, 199 Mass., 446; Railway Co. v. Osborn, 66 O. S., 45; Craig v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co., 93 N. E., 575.

The use of the adjectives, “terrible,” etc., as descriptive of the kind of jerk were but conclusions of the witness.

The trial court therefore erred in not granting the motions of plaintiff in error to direct a verdict in its behalf.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error will be entered in this court.  