Court Opinion

ID: 9808375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:36:19.500739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:58.588381
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
concurs in the ruling on the exception to the charge and dissents from the ruling on the motion to nonsuit.
The case is grounded on the decision in Riggs v. R. R., 188 N. C., 366, 124 S. E., 749. There, it was held that “a sudden and violent jerk” of a train which threw the feme plaintiff, a passenger, against *24tbe iron frame of a seat and severely injured ber was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. It is a far cry from the evidence in the Riggs case, supra, to the evidence in the instant case.
The law is well settled and to the effect that a carrier is not liable for the result of ordinary jolts or jerks incident to the starting or stopping-of its conveyances in the usual and customary manner. Usury v. Watkins, 152 N. C., 760, 67 S. E., 926; Marable v. R. R., 142 N. C., 557, 55 S. E., 355; Murphy v. New Orleans Public Service, 7 La. App., 612, 169 So., 890. “It has been decided in many cases that the starting of a car with a ‘jerk’ is not evidence of negligence.” Gollis v. St. Ry., 254 Mass, 157, 149 N. E., 607; Seidenberg v. St. Ry. Co., 266 Mass., 540, 165 N. E., 658.
Barnhill and "WinborNE, JJ., concur in this opinion.