jerks, jolts and stops. This court is also conscious of decisions which hold that the mere use of an adjective or an adverb by the plaintiff or her witness is not sufficient to make for negligence on the part of a common carrier such as the defendant here, and that there must be more than such characterization. Likewise, the mere fact that a passenger falls is not sufficient. However, in the instant case, besides plaintiff's characterization of the stop as "fast", there is the report by defendant's operator, the one best able to know, in which he stated that there was a "partially" sudden stop and that the bus stopped "somewhat faster than normal". Furthermore, the jury had before it the effect of the sudden stop. The stop of the bus was sufficiently sudden and violent to reverse plaintiff's movement from the normal forward lean of a person walking toward the rear of a bus to a backward motion and down to the floor of the bus.
The degree of suddenness that must be involved in a stop to remove it from the category of normal jerks and jolts, the risk of which is assumed by a passenger, is a coefficient of the degree of care required of the bus company. That has been described as the highest degree of care. Williams v. Capital Transit Co., 94 U.S.App.D.C. 221, 215 F.2d 487 (1954). The court is not prepared to say that a stop described by the defendant's own agents as "partially" sudden, and "somewhat faster than normal" is, as a matter of law, a jerk or movement which is not more than the necessary or usual incident of rapid transit operation.
(2) Defendant complains concerning the receipt in evidence of the accident report made by the defendant's operator Jones, Jones having been unavailable to either plaintiff or defendant at the time of the trial. When witness Cross, who was on the bus as operator Jones' supervisor, was called by plaintiff, he was unable to recollect any of the facts pertaining to the accident, nor could his memory be refreshed by viewing Jones' accident report. He did, however, testify that he had read the report and that if it had failed to reflect correctly any data therein he would have caused it to be corrected. While the witness, Supervisor Cross, did not actually write the statement, he did see it and pass judgment on it as correct. It therefore became for him a correct record of an incident which took place while he was supervising the operation of the bus. See 3 Wigmore, Evidence § 748 (3d ed. 1940). The mere fact that, in response to direct questions put to him by defense counsel on cross examination, this witness later attempted to indicate lack of knowledge as to certain matters embraced within the statement is not sufficient, in the light of his direct testimony, to render inadmissible the statement which was received in evidence.
Furthermore, aside from its admissibility as the past recollection recorded of witness Cross, it should be noted that Jones, in his deposition, admitted the report constituted his past recollection recorded and indicated that he had no present recollection of the circumstances giving rise to the report. Defendant by judicial admission established the report as that of operator Jones. In addition, defendant expressly waived its rights to cross-examine Jones as to the accuracy of the report by a letter to plaintiff's counsel (Plaintiff's Ex. No. 3). Under these circumstances, the court would have admitted the report as the past recollection recorded of operator Jones if it had not found it also constituted the past recollection recorded of witness Cross. See 3 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 734, 744-748 (3d ed. 1940); Gunning v. Cooley, 58 App.D.C. 304, 30 F.2d 467 (1929).
(3) Defendant further maintains that the court was in error in instructing on res ipsa loquitur. Defense counsel's arguments on this point are multifarious. First he argues that, once plaintiff showed by the evidence that the proximate cause of her harm was the stop, this established the specific cause of her harm and there was no room left for the inference embodied in res ipsa. He cites Levy v. D.C. Transit System, Inc., D.C.Mun.App., 174 A.2d 731 (1961). Defendant also indicates that, if the unusual nature of the stop was satisfactorily shown, the doctrine became inapplicable and its inclusion in the charge was, as a practical matter, prejudicial. He strongly argues that the introduction of the doctrine allowed the plaintiff to establish by inference the unusual nature of the stop, and that, since the establishment of the unusual nature was a prerequisite to applying res ipsa, the instruction allowed the jury to pile inference upon inference.
Basic to defendant's first and second contentions is the notion that, once specific evidence introduced by the plaintiff shows that the cause of her harm was a stop and that the stop was of an unusual nature, the bus company is liable without any additional proof. This proposition finds no support in the cases. A violent stop is not per se negligence; it merely gives rise to an inference of negligence, i.e., the inference embodied in res ipsa loquitur. In the same way, proof by a plaintiff that he was struck by the proverbial barrel does not per se give rise to liability on the part of the source of that barrel. Without the assistance of the res ipsa loquitur inference plaintiff in the instant case would be compelled to prove specific acts of negligence on the part of the bus driver leading to the violent stop. In view of the high degree of care required of common carriers, the overwhelming probability is that the violent stop with resultant physical effects hereinbefore referred to would not have taken place unless there was in fact a violation of the high-degree-of-care requirement. The law recognizes this by applying the doctrine of res ipsa. If a sudden stop in itself produced liability, there would of course be no cases applying res ipsa to sudden-stop situations.
The evidence concerning the cause of the sudden stop is not such as to make res ipsa loquitur unnecessary. Plaintiff did introduce evidence that operator Jones was following a D.C. Transit bus so closely that he was unable to see the light at the intersection of 15th and K until he was going into the intersection, that only then did he see that it was turning red, and that he was thus forced to make the "fast" stop. However, this does not make res ipsa unnecessary. For proof of specific circumstances to render the inference under res ipsa inapplicable, the circumstances must have been so completely elucidated that no inference of defendant's liability could reasonably be made. Loketch v. Capital Transit Co., 101 U.S.App.D.C. 287, 288, 248 F.2d 609, 610 (1957). Plaintiff has not so clearly shown the causes of the stop as to leave nothing to inference. Whether the bus operator was negligent in producing the unusual stop was an issue before the jury, and the jury could not only legitimately rely on plaintiff's evidence of what caused the stop, but could infer negligence under res ipsa from the unusual stop itself. It was for the jury to determine which of the methods to apply. In the instant case the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff by either method - inference or proof of specific negligence.
In considering the contention that plaintiff was able to use the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish the violence of the stop, it seems appropriate to see at what point in the charge res ipsa loquitur was dealt with. It followed full definition of common law negligence, the duty of a common carrier, and the proposition that a carrier is not an insurer of the passenger's safety, but that the operator has the duty to exercise the care and caution which a bus driver of reasonable skill and foresight could fairly be expected to exercise over the conditions leading up to and resulting in the accident. Then, in substance at least, if not verbatim, defendant's requested instruction No. 6 was granted:
"A common carrier, such as the defendant is not liable for injuries and damages which may have been sustained as the result of jerks or movements which are not more than the necessary or usual incidents of rapid transit operation. The law requires that passengers take precautions against jerks and movements, and states that they must assume the risks of those movements as an incident to their travel on vehicles of public conveyance, unless you find that the accident alleged by the plaintiff was the result of an unusual and extraordinary force which could not reasonably be said to have happened in the ordinary operation of the vehicle."