after stating tbe facts: A common carrier is charged with tbe duty of carrying passengers to tbe point of their destination and there affording them fair and reasonable opportunity to alight from the cars and depart from the train yards or depot grounds in safety. In Hutchinson on Carriers, sec. 928, speaking of these obligations, the author says: “It is the duty of railway companies as carriers of passengers to provide platforms, waiting rooms and other reasonable accommodations for such passengers at the stations upon such road at which they are in the habit of taking on and putting off passengers. Their public profession as such carriers is an invitation to the public to enter and to alight from their cars at their stations, and it has been held that they must not only provide safe platforms and approaches thereto, but that they are bound to make safe for all persons who may come to such stations in order to become their passengers or who may be put off there by them all portions of their station grounds reasonably near to such platforms and to which such persons may be likely to go; and for not having provided such sta-tional accommodations and safeguards railway companies have frequently been held liable for injuries to such persons.” And in section 1117: “The passenger is entitled not only to be properly carried, but he must be carried to the end of the journey for which he has contracted to be carried, and must be put down at the usual place of stopping.” And, further, in section 1118: “When the conveyance has reached the destination of the passenger the carrier must exercise the highest degree of practicable care, diligence and skill in affording the passenger sufficient time and opportunity to alight; and if the usual sufficient time be not given him to alight and he is compelled to go on to the next station, or if a sudden start of the conveyance be made whilst he is in the act of alighting, and an injury is occasioned to him thereby, it will be negligence in the carrier for the consequences of which he will be responsible.” And Moore on Carriers states the same doctrine, as *451follows (section 38) : “It is tbe duty of tbe servants of a carrier of passengers, especially when in charge of a railroad train, to stop it a reasonable time to allow passengers to board or aligbt witb safety; and; in tbe absence of contributory negligence on tbe part of tbe passengers, tbe carrier is liable for injuries resulting from a failure to perform tbis duty. * * * Tbe duty resting upon a carrier involves tbe obligation to deliver its passenger safely at bis desired destination, and that involves tbe duty of observing whether be has actually alighted before tbe car is started again. If tbe conductor fails to attend to tbis duty and does not give tbe passenger time enough to get off before tbe car starts, it is necessarily tbis neglect of duty which is tbe primary and proximate cause of tbe accident, if injury be occasioned thereby to' tbe passenger. It is not a duty due a person solely because lie is in danger of being hurt, but it is a duty owed to a person whom tbe carrier bad undertaken to deliver and who was entitled to be delivered safely by being allowed to aligbt without danger.”
As in other duties looking to tbe safety of their passengers, carriers are held to a high degree of care in respect to these obligations, and such duties are in no sense performed by stopping before they reach their usual place or in stopping before or at such place, witb cars on parallel tracks so close together that by tbe projection of tbe cars over tbe rails passengers, in order to enter or aligbt from trains, are forced into a crowded passway, where tbe slightest motion of either train or a rush of tbe passengers themselves is not unlikely to result in painful and at times serious or even fatal injuries.
An application of these principles to tbe facts presented gives clear indication that defendant was guilty of a negligent breach of duty in reference to plaintiff, a passenger on one of its trains, and there is no testimony to justify tbe ruling that as a matter of law plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. Tbis is not a case which comes within tbe principle on which Shaw v. Railroad, 143 N. C., 312, was made to rest, *452' that a passenger wbo was injured by reason of going out on a platform while the train was in motion, in violation of a rule of the company posted in pursuance of the statute, was barred of recovery. In the case before us the train had come to a stop, the only one it intended to make at the station, and the plaintiff had gone out on the platform with a view of alighting, and before she was given opportunity to do so the train started, and by reason of two sudden jerks plaintiff was thrown from the train and injured. The facts bring the case more nearly within the decision of Darden v. Railroad, 144 N. C., 1, and must be determined on the principles of that well-considered opinion, as far as the same apply.
There was error in directing a nonsuit, and this will be certified, that a proper trial of the cause may be had.
Error.