"We find no error in the judgment dismissing this action. The judgment is supported by the decision of this Court in Davis v. R. R., 187 N. C., 147, 120 S. E., 827. In the opinion in that case it is said: “The decisions in this State have been very insistent upon the principle that a pedestrian voluntarily using a live railroad track as a walkway for his own convenience, is required at all times to look and listen, and to take note of dangers that naturally threaten and which such action on his part would'have disclosed, and if in breach of this duty and by reason of it, he fails to avoid a train moving along the track, and is run upon and killed or injured, his default will be imputed to him for contributory negligence and recovery is ordinarily barred.” See cases cited.
There was no evidence at the trial of this action tending to show a situation upon which an issue involving the principle of “last clear chance” should have been submitted to the jury. Redmon v. R. R., 195 N. C., 764, 143 S. E., 829. Conceding that there was some evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant, all the evidence offered by the plaintiff showed that by his own negligence he contributed to the injuries which caused his death. Plaintiff is therefore barred of recovery in this action. Neal v. R. R., 126 N. C., 634, 36 S. E., 117, 49 L. R. A., 684. The judgment is