
    MARY A. NICHOLSON v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY.
    (Filed 10 November, 1915.)
    1. Common Carriers — Places of Business — Invitation, Express or Implied— Safety of Patrons.
    Common carriers and others who induce the public to come into their places of business by invitation, express or implied, owe to them the duty of using reasonable care to keep the premises in a safe condition, so that their patrons may not unnecessarily be exposed to danger.
    2. Same — Express Companies — Negligence—Trials—Questions for Jury.
    Where upon notice a patron of an express company, an elderly lady, has gone to the company’s office to receive an express package, and in her action to recover damages there is evidence tending to show that to repair the floors therein the flooring had been removed in front of the door, and a bystander helped her across, but being detained, the Sills had also been removed when she desired to leave, and the same person who had assisted her, threw down a plank for her to cross, which she attempted to do, but went back, observing that the plank would break with her, within the sight and hearing of the agent and his clerk, about five feet off, but who paid no attention to her; whereupon she, being compelled to go home, again made the attempt to cross, but her foot slipped and she fell to her injury: Held, evidence sufficient upon the question of defendant’s actionable negligence to take the case to the jury.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Coolce, J., at the February Term, 1915, of GRANVILLE.
    Civil action. At the conclusion of the evidence his Honor granted a motion to nonsuit, and the plaintiff appealed.
    
      A, W. Graham and A. W. Graham, Jr., for the plaintiff.
    
    
      B. 3. Boyster for the defendant.
    
   Brown, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover damages from the defendant for an injury sustained in the office of the defendant in Oxford. The testimony tends to prove that the plaintiff, an elderly lady, upon notice from tbe defendant, called at its office for tbe purpose of receiving a package consigned to ber through tbe defendant. Upon entering tbe office door, she found that tbe floor extending from tbe street back into tbe office for a space of six feet long and four feet wide bad been torn up, exposing tbe sleepers upon which tbe floor bad rested. Tbe defendant was repairing tbe office floor by taking up some of tbe sleepers which were rotten. Tbe plaintiff was assisted across tbe sleepers to tbe counter, behind which tbe defendant’s agent stood, by tbe band of a bystander. Tbe agent detained ber some time before delivering tbe package.

During this time tbe sleepers bad been entirely cut away by tbe workmen and tbe pieces thrown down into tbe bole in tbe floor. When tbe plaintiff bad received tbe package and turned to go out, tbe same person who assisted ber in threw down a thin piece of plank across tbe bole in tbe floor, across which tbe plaintiff started to wolk. Fearing that she would break through, she got back on tbe solid floor, remarking: “I cannot walk that plank; it will break through with me.” This was said in tbe bearing of tbe agent and bis clerk, who at tbe time were playing with a puppy within five feet of tbe plaintiff. They both saw tbe bole in tbe floor and tbe plaintiff’s predicament, but offered ber no help.

The plaintiff, seeing that no one would help ber, and being compelled to go home, stepped down into the bole and attempted to get across it so as to reach tbe street. Her foot slipped, something causing ber to stumble, and she was thrown forward with great force and was badly bruised and injured.

"We think this evidence, if taken to be true, makes out a clear lack of duty to tbe plaintiff upon tbe part of tbe defendant’s agent. It is well settled that not only common carriers, including express companies, but merchants and others who induce tbe public to come to their places of business by invitation, express or implied, owe to them tbe duty of using reasonable care to keep tbe premises in a safe condition so that their patrons may not be unnecessarily exposed to danger. 29 Oyc., 453; 2 Shearman and Bedfield on Negligence, page 106.

Upon tbe state of facts presented in this record, tbe plaintiff cannot be said to be guilty of contributory negligence upon ber own evidence. On tbe contrary, it may well be argued to tbe jury that she was in a predicament brought about by tbe defendant’s negligence and that she bad to go home and took tbe only way out in order to reach tbe street. In doing so, to say tbe least, it is a question for tbe jury if she exercised such reasonable care as a person of ordinary prudence would be expected to exercise under tbe circumstances in which she was placed. Darden v. Plymouth, 166 N. C., 492.

There must be a new trial.

Eeversed.  