Tbe plaintiff on 27 September, 1915, went to Bridge-water Station on tbe defendant’s road to take tbe westbound train. He took bis seat in tbe waiting-room, but, it being cold, be went out on tbe platform, and while waiting for tbe westbound train be sat down on tbe platform of tbe station four or five steps from tbe ground, 8 feet from tbe track and 2 feet from tbe edge of tbe platform. While sitting there tbe defendant’s eastbound passenger train came by tbe station at a speed of about 35 miles an hour, and while passing at such speed a mail bag, weighing 35 to 40 pounds, was thrown from tbe mail car, striking tbe plaintiff on bis leg, causing serious injury. Tbe defendant bad been in tbe habit of running by said station without stopping and permitting tbe mail bag to be thus thrown off. Tbe plaintiff having come on tbe premises for tbe purpose of becoming a passenger, and within a reasonable time, was entitled to tbe protection of a passenger. Hansley v. R. R., 115 N. C., 603; Tillett v. R. R., ib., 662; s. c., 118 N. C., 1032.
Tbe testimony was that tbe train was running about 35 miles an hour; that there was a crane for mail purposes, but instead of using it, tbe defendant was in tbe habit of throwing out tbe mail pouch, which sometimes rolled up to the very steps of tbe platform, and tbe mail pouch was often thrown off at any point between tbe crane, which was 75 feet from tbe platform, down to the platform, and that tbe pouch thus thrown on this occasion struck tbe plaintiff, who was on tbe platform.
We presume that tbe court below nonsuited tbe plaintiff upon the ground that tbe defendant was not liable for tbe negligence of tbe postal clerk in tbe service of tbe Federal Government; but this practice was dangerous, and, being habitual, it 'was negligence in tbe defendant not to have reported it to tbe Postoffice authorities, which would doubtless have required tbe mail clerk'to use tbe crane. If tbe defendant made such report, or took any other steps to stop this practice, this was a matter which tbe defendant should have put in evidence. In Mangum v. R. R., 145 N. C., 155, Brown, J., said: “For tbe same reason, Muster v. R. R., 61 Wis., 325, cited by tbe defendant, is no authority, in our opinion, to sustain its contention. In that case a postal clerk negligently threw out a mail bag at an unusual place where be bad never before thrown it. Tbe court held that tbe company could not anticipate such conduct, and therefore was not called upon to take precautionary measures to prevent injuries. On tbe contrary, it was held in Snow v. R. R., 136 Mass., 552, that ‘A passenger waiting on a platfrom at tbe railroad station for a train, and injured by a mail bag being thrown from a passing train, such throwing being customary and well known to tbe company, may recover of tbe railroad company therefor.’ Tbe decision is put upon tbe ground that, although tbe postal clerk is not tbe agent of the railroad company, but is the agent of tbe National *496Government exclusively, tbe custom being known to tbe company, it must take precautions to protect its passengers from injurious consequences.”
It was further held in Mangum v. R. R., supra (at p. 164): “Tbe defendant owed a duty to plaintiff, and to all other passengers, to keep tbe depot platforms used by them as a means of ingress and egress free from obstructions and dangerous instrumentalities, especially at tbe time when its passengers are hurrying to and from its cars. Pineus v. R. R., supra; R. R. v. Johnson, 36 Kan., 769.”
Mangum v. R. R. has been cited with approval in Roberts v. R. R., 155 N. C., 84, where tbe Court says that public carriers “must not only provide safe platforms and approaches thereto, but they are bound to make it safe for all persons when they come to their stations in order to become passengers.” To same purport Fulghum v. R. R., 158 N. C., 561.
To same purport as to the liability of the common carrier for injuries sustained by mail pouches being thrown from moving trains to the injury of passengers, R. R. v. Rhodes, 30 C. C. A., 157; Carpenter v. R. R., 97 N. Y., 494; and many other cases cited in the excellent brief of the plaintiff’s counsel.
The authorities are summed up in Cyc., 609, 610, as follows: “A carrier will be liable if a passenger is injured by reason of the throwing of mail pouches from postal cars in such way as to involve danger to passengers, if it has permitted postal clerks to adopt an unsafe method of delivering such pouches.”
The judgment of nonsuit must be
Reversed.