
    CLYDE D. HOPKINS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
    (Filed 30 October, 1946.)
    Railroads § 4—
    Where plaintiff alleges negligence on the part of defendant railroad company in failing under the circumstances to maintain lights, watchman or guards at a public crossing, but plaintiff’s evidence discloses that the lights on his car were burning and that he ran into the train, nonsuit is proper for failure of evidence tending to show any causal relation between the negligence complained of and the injury.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Sinlc, J., at February Term, 1946, of Cabarrus.
    Civil action to recover for personal injuries allegedly resulting from actionable negligence of defendant in failing under tbe circumstances to maintain “lights, watchman or guards or facilities to protect tbe public at tbe point where tbe said railroad makes a crossing of "West Corbin Street,” in tbe city of Concord, North Carolina.
    Tbe evidence for plaintiff tends to show, succinctly stated, tbat between 11 and 12 o’clock on tbe night of 6 September, 1945, as be, riding in bis automobile, with lights in good condition, approached the railroad crossing on West Corbin Street, upgrade to the east, he came to a complete stop, about 30 or 35 feet from the main southbound track, and looked and listened and, failing to see or to hear anything, started on across, and when he “got up on the track” he saw the passing train when he “was within four feet of it, — too late to stop”; that “the weather was rainy, foggy ... a pretty heavy mist and fog”; that “when . . . within four feet of the train” he “discovered at thát time there was smoke mixed in with the fog and mist and rain”; that “there were not any signal devices there, no watchman, no lights, no bells, no gates,” and that he collided with the train — the train “snatched the car,” and he sustained injuries.
    From judgment as of nonsuit at close of plaintiff’s evidence, he appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.
    
      B. W. Blackwelder for plaintiff, appellant.
    
    
      Hartsell & Hartsell for defendant, appellee.
    
   Per Curiam.

A careful consideration of the evidence offered by plaintiff fails to show any causal relation between the acts of negligence alleged and the injury sustained. No new principle of law is involved. Old and well established principles of law support the action of the court in sustaining demurrer to the evidence.

Affirmed.  