The vital question in the case is whether or not the motion for nonsuit should have been granted.
While several elements of negligence were alleged, it does not appear from the proof offered that the injury to plaintiff proximately resulted from any of these elements, except that there was trash on the ground where the rails were unloaded, and that there were small scales of steel upon the rails which were worked off in the process of unloading. Therefore, the question of law standing at the threshold of the inquiry is whether or not the defendant could, in the exercise of ordinary care, anticipate or foresee that a particle of trash or steel would be blown into the plaintiff’s eye. The rule of liability applicable to the facts presented is thus stated in Carter V. Lumber Co., 129 N. C., 203, 39 S. E., 828: “It is right that one should be required to anticipate and guard against consequences that may be reasonably expected to occur; but it would be violative of every principle of law or justice if he should be compelled to foresee and provide against that which no reasonable man would expect to happen. The business affairs of life would come to a standstill if employers had to busy themselves for their own and their employee’s safety in the study of ingenious devices to meet every case of possible damage and hurt. There would soon be neither capitalists nor laborers from the modern view. The reasonable man, then, to whose ideal behavior we are to look as the standard of duty, will neither neglect what he can forecast as probable, nor waste his anxiety on events that are barely possible. He will order his precaution by the measure of what appears likely to be known in the course of things.” Bradley v. Coal Co., 169 N. C., 255, 85 S. E., 388; Davis v. R. R., 170 N. C., 582, 87 S. E., 745.
There is a suggestion that the suction or vortex created by the passenger train might have blown the foreign substance into plaintiff’s eye. *309However, suction created by a moving train bas not been recognized as an element of actionable negligence in tbis State under ordinary circumstances. Davis v. R. R., 170 N. C., 582.
Tbe evidence of plaintiff, viewed in its most favorable light, does not disclose bow tbe trasb or steel was blown into bis eye. Tbis fact rests only in conjecture, and conjecture or speculation is not evidence.
Upon tbis state of tbe record, we are forced to tbe conclusion tbat tbe evidence demonstrated no causal connection between tbe injury and tbe acts of negligence complained of; neither does it appear tbat tbe defendant in tbe exercise of ordinary care could have reasonably anticipated or foreseen tbat injury was likely to occur under tbe circumstances disclosed by tbe record.
Therefore, we agree with tbe trial judge tbat tbe cause should have been nonsuited.