
    SKINNER v. WILMINGTON AND WELDON RAILROAD CO.
    (Filed May 30, 1901.)
    
      NEGLIGENCE — Railroads—Personal Injuries — Passengers—Evidence.
    TEe evidence in this case is insufficient to show negligence on part of a railroad for injuries to a passenger.
    ActioN by Emily Skinner, administratrix, against the Wilmington 'and Weldon Railroad Company, heard by Judge J. W. Bowman, aft February Term, 1900, of the Superior Court of Wilson Ooumity. From a judgment dismissing the action, the plaintiff appealed.
    
      Deans & Cantwell, and J. H. Pou, for the plaintiff.
    
      Ay cock & Daniels, for .the defendant.
   Montgomery, J.

The plaintiff’s intestate was a passenger on one of 'tire defendant’s trains and nipón its reaching Wilson lie get tip to disembark. Tbe train was stopped a little before tbe baggage car was placed against tbe baggage to be taken on. At this time tbe intestate w^as seen standing on tbe platform of a passenger car supporting bimself by bawing bis band in position on tbe door-facing. Tbe train Was then moved up a little forward, gently and without jerking and stopped. At this juncture -tbe door of tbe oo'acb shut itself and tbe intestate’s bland' was oaugbit in tbe jam and badly injured. Tbe following is the whole of the evidence offered by tbe plaintiff in tbe case:

David Barnes, for tbe plaintiff, testified: “I was porter at tbe hotel. Met train No. 48, June 14, 1898, at tbe depot in Wilson. When the train 'arrived it stopped a little before it got the baggage car against the baggage. Mr. Skinner was standing on tbe platform supporting bimself by bis band between the door-face. Train moved forward a little and at the second stop tbe door Came shut and blis fingers were caught in tbe jam of the door and injured. When I first saw Mr. Skinner be was in bis seat. This was before the train stopped the first time, and just about the time it wlas coming to a stop I saw Mr. Skinner get up and walk forward. When I next saw him 'be was standing on the platform with his band on tbe door jam as before stated.”

On cross-examination this witness testified that “it was not always possible to stop a train exactly against the baggage and it was not unusual for it to move up a little ways after it first stopped in order to get the baggage. When tbe train moved up to tbe baggage it moved up in an ordinary way and stopped as it ordinarily stopped, without jerking.”

Frank Pierce testified for tbe plaintiff as follows: “I was working for the Express Company on the 14th of June, 1898, when 'the ateicidienlt occurred. When thle train stopped I boarded tbe express car to unload and load express. Tbe train moved up a little. I called to tbe band to pull truck off. Train moved up and stopped. After it stopped I saw a man getting off with bis bland hurt. T did nlot know tbe man at tbe time, but afterwards found it was the intestate of tbe plaintiff. 1'rain did not move brat a little ways and moved up and stopped gently.”

We can not see tbe least negligence in tbe management of the defendant’s train, a,nd there was no testimony of 'any fault in tbe condition or construction of the coach door. Tbe occasion was purely an accident. Nothing short of stationing a man at both doors in each coach 'at every stopping place to watch the doors to prevent injury to passengers could prevent just such accidents, and such a requirement would he most unreasonable under present conditions. There is no analogy between this case 'and that of Nance v. Railroad, 94 N. C., 623. There the train had been brought to near a standstill at a Station, and the passenger was in the act of alighting when the engineer caused a motion.of the train, violent and sudden.

His Honor was right in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the action.

No error.  