Negligence being eliminated by the answer to the first issue, the question raised by the motion to nonsuit and by the exceptions to the refusal to instruct the jury as requested is whether there is any evidence to support the finding on the third issue, that the plaintiff was injured by the reckless and willful acts and conduct of defendant’s brakeman.
If the brakeman shoved the barrel of coca-cola on the plaintiff willfully and recklessly and injured him, he is guilty of a violation of the *645criminal law, and the words used in tbe issue have the same import and should receive the same construction as if embodied in a criminal statute.
In S. v. Whitener, 93 N. C., 592, which was approved in S. v. Morgan, 136 N. C., 630, the Court said: “The word willful, used in a statute creating a criminal offense, means something more than an intention to do a thing. It implies the doing the act purposely and deliberately, indicating a purpose to do it, without authority — careless whether he has the right or not — in violation of law”; and recklessness is defined to be an indifference whether wrong is done or not, an indifference to the rights of others.
It is a stronger term than negligence. 7 Words and Phr., 5999. Applying these principles, we are of opinion there is no evidence of recklessness or willfulness.
According to the evidence of the plaintiff, he and another were on the ground pulling the barrel and the brakeman was in the car pushing, the barrel caught and the combined efforts of those on the ground and of the brakeman finally freed it and forced it through the door, and it struck the plaintiff in falling.
There is nothing to suggest indifference to the safety of the plaintiff or anything except a purpose to aid in the removal of the barrel, and no extraordinary or unusual means were resorted to.
As was said in Seagroves v. Winston, ante, 206, “Circumstances raising a possibility or conjecture, unless sustained by other evidence, should not be left to the jury as evidence of a fact which a party is required to prove.”
If, however, there was evidence to support the findings of the jury, the verdict is not sufficient to sustain the judgment, as there is no issue determinative of the defendant’s liability.
It is found that the brakeman of the defendant injured the plaintiff, but there is nothing to show that the defendant is responsible for his acts, and it is not every act of a brakeman which imposes liability on his employer.
The motion to nonsuit ought to have been allowed.
Eeversed.