
    A. D. WEAVER v. WAYNE HARDWOOD COMPANY et al.
    (Filed 5 April, 1916.)
    Negligence — Trials—Evidence—Nonsuit.
    An experienced inspector of timber for tbe purchaser on the premises of the seller brought his action to recover from the latter damages for a personal injury received while inspecting the lumber by its falling down upon him; and the evidence tends only to show that he was familiar with the premises and this particular pile of lumber, and was inspecting it in his own way, and could not account for its falling. Held, insufficient to take the case to the jury, and a judgment as of nonsuit was proper.
    ActioN tried before Beetles, J., and a jury, at October Term, 1915, of Wayne, to recover damages for personal injury.
    Tbe plaintiff was an inspector of lumber, and was in tbe immediate employ of tbe Dickson Lumber Company of Norfolk, Ya. His employer bad made arrangements to purchase some lumber and “dimension stuff” from tbe Wayne Hardwood Company, located at Goldsboro, N. C. Tbe plaintiff went to tbe plant of tbe defendant Wayne Hardwood Company, in Goldsboro, to inspect some lumber and timber and to grade tbe same, and to see it loaded upon a railway car. Tbe timber which was to be inspected and graded consisted of hardwood squares, varying in size from about 6x6 inches to 8 x 8 inches,“and in length from 14 to 16 feet. This, timber was piled on a platform, 8 feet wide, 34 feet long, and 6 feet in height, near to and beside a spur track of tbe railway company. A space was left at one end of tbe platform and the plaintiff was standing upon this space, about 20 x 24 inches in size, having climbed over tbe pile of timber to reach this space. There was a “cull” piece of timber on tbe front row or tier of timber next to tbe railway tracks. This stack of timber or tiers of timber was on the’front part of tbe platform, and was about 2 or 3 feet in height, and 2 to 2% feet in width, and of timber 14 feet in length. Tbe larger timbers and longer timbers were back from tbe front of tbe platform some 2 to 3 feet, and tbis larger timber was to tbe side and rear of tbe plaintiff at tbe time of tbe falling of tbe timber by wbicb be was injured. All tbis timber, consisting of tbe 14-foot timber and tbe 16-foot timber, was piled on tbe same platform and formed a part of tbe same lumber and timber wbicb tbe plaintiff was to inspect and load on tbe cars. On tbe front tier, next to tbe railway, there was a “cull” piece of timber, and tbe foreman of tbe defendant requested tbe plaintiff Weaver to band tbis piece down to bim, tbe foreman, to tbe ground before tbe railway car reached tbe point opposite tbe platform preparatory to loading.
    While plaintiff was standing upon tbis space on tbe platform, about 24 inches square, tbe pile of 16-foot timber to bis side and rear tumbled down, threw tbe plaintiff onto tbe railway track and ground below, and some of tbe large timber fell upon bim and seriously injured bim.
    Tbe plaintiff bad inspected timber at tbe same place tbe day before bis injury, and under similar conditions. Tbe timber was placed on tbe platform as it came from tbe mill for tbe purpose of transferring it to tbe ears.
    Tbe plaintiff was a man of experience in tbe work be was doing, and went to tbe space on wbicb be was standing of bis own choice.
    At tbe conclusion of tbe evidence bis Honor entered judgment of nonsuit, and tbe plaintiff excepted and appealed.
    
      J. D. Murphey, Guy Weaver, and Jones & Bailey for plaintiff.
    
    
      Langston, Allen & Taylor and Murray Allen for defendant.
    
   Per Curiam.

Tbe plaintiff was not an employee of tbe defendant hardwood company, and bis contention is that be was upon tbe premises of tbe defendant by invitation, and that be was injured by reason of tbe negligent manner in wbicb tbe timber wbicb be was required to inspect was piled upon tbe platform, and upon tbis allegation of negligence there is an entire failure of proof.

Tbe plaintiff was tbe only witness who was examined as to tbe piling of tbe timber, and was asked these questions:

“You don’t know bow come tbe timber to fall?” and be replied: “No, I don’t.”
“Did you notice bow tbe timber wbicb fell was piled?” “I do not know bow the timber that fell was piled.”

We are therefore of opinion that there is no error in entering tbe judgment of nonsuit.

Affirmed.  