after stating the case: Under the principles announced in White v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 536, 109 S. E., 564, Earwood v. R. R., 192 N. C., 27, 133 S. E., 180, and Taylor v. Lumber Co., 173 N. C., 112, 91 S. E., 719 (on the question of proximate cause), we think the case should have been submitted to the jury.
The conclusion is entirely permissible and the fact readily inferable, viewing the evidence in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, that the defendant’s train at the time of the collision was blocking the street in violation of the town ordinance of Parmelee which makes it unlawful for any train or engine to stand on or block any of the street crossings in said town longer than ten minutes at a time.
We have held in a number of cases that it is negligence on the part of defendant to fail to observe a positive safety requirement ,of the law. Albritton v. Hill, 190 N. C., 429, 130 S. E., 5; Taylor v. Stewart, 172 N. C., 203, 90 S. E., 134. And where a failure of this kind is admitted or established, it is' ordinarily a question for the jury to determine whether such negligence is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Stultz v. Thomas, 182 N. C., 470, 109 S. E., 361. But, of course, if the negligence of the driver and his fault alone were the sole proximate cause of the injury, as distinguished from a proximate cause or one of the proximate causes, then there could be no recovery against the railroad. Earwood v. R. R., supra.
Weston v. R. R., 194 N. C., 210, 139 S. E., 237, is distinguishable, for there the suit was by the owner and driver of the ear, while here the plaintiff, a mere invited guest with no authority or control over the car, and not its owner, brings the action. Ordinarily, the negligence of the driver, under such circumstances, is not imputable to the guest or passenger. Williams v. R. R., 187 N. C., 348, 121 S. E., 608 (concurring opinion); Bagwell v. R. R., 167 N. C., 611, 83 S. E., 814. But this principle may be subject to modification if it should appear that the occupants of the car were engaged in a joint enterprise. Pusey v. R. R., 181 N. C., 137, 106 S. E., 452.