after stating the ease: In our opinion, there was evidence of the defendant’s negligence for the consideration of the jury, and this is the only question before us..
We express no opinion as to its weight, and forbear to discuss it further than is necessary to indicate upon what ground this decision rests, as the case is to be tried before a jury, whose verdict should be rendered uninfluenced by an expression of opinion on the facts by this or any other court.
The evidence on a judgment of nonsuit must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and for the purposes of this appeal we must accept as proven the facts which the evidence reasonably sustains.
There is no suggestion in the record that the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of a fellow-servant, and the defendant admits that Stewart was in charge of the hands and the work.
The evidence tends to show that the defendant was handling a heavy pole 58 feet long, resting on the top of walls 10 feet from the ground; that it was the purpose of the defendant to raise the pole by means of a rope and place it in a hole; that the rope was fastened to the pole, and extended to a snatch block, and then extended some distance, where it was held by employees of the defendant; that the |>ole was not in the right position; that the foreman ordered the plaintiff to go on top of one of the division walls 12 inches wide, and force the pole into position by using a scantling; that the plaintiff obeyed the order and had the scantling under the pole, pushing it, when the foreman, who was in full view, suddenly and without notice to the plaintiff, gave the signal which caused the employees of the defendant, who had hold of the rope, to pull it, and that this carried the pole towards the plaintiff, knocked him from the wall, and injured him.
If so, there was evidence that a man of ordinary prudence could have foreseen that injury would probably result to the plaintiff by obedience to the signal, and that giving the signal was the cause of the injury, and this would be evidence of negligence.
*319Tbe place where tbe rope was fastened to tbe pole, tbe direction of tbe snatcb block, and tbe position of tbe men wbo pulled tbe rope, were also circumstances wbicb tbe jury could consider.
Tbe ease falls witbin tbe principle declared in Beal v. Fiber Co., 154 N. C., 157.
There was error in ordering a nonsuit, and there must be a
New trial.