The question for decision is whether the evidence survives the demurrer. The trial court answered in the negative. We are inclined to a different view.
The case was made to turn in the court below on the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Opposing inferences seem permissible from the evidence, especially in view of the ambiguity in the testimony of the Highway Patrolman who investigated the occurrence, and in this state of the record the decisions require that the case be submitted to the jury.
The two vehicles were proceeding in the same direction in the nighttime, through fog and rain, on a ivet, slippery road. The plaintiff says “the first thing I knew the bus stopped right in front of me” and pro*384duced the rear-end collision as another car was coining from the opposite direction; that the bus was dirty and muddy; that he didn’t see any brake lights or stop lights, and that the red lights were not in operation. The Highway Patrolman says the lights on the rear of the bus, which were burning when he arrived, including the lights at the top of the bus, were very dim due to a film on the inside of the lights. He further says, “I couldn’t see because it was foggy. It was very foggy and the road was wet at the time.” This evidence would seem to require the submission of the issue of contributory negligence to the jury.
It is true, there is other evidence less favorable to the plaintiff, but its probable weight is not for the court on motion for nonsuit. Cummins v. Fruit Co., 225 N. C., 625, 36 S. E. (2d), 11; Clarke v. Martin, 215 N. C., 405, 2 S. E. (2d), 10; Williams v. Express Lines, 198 N. C., 193, 151 S. E., 197. “The rule applicable in cases of this kind is that if diverse inferences may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, some favorable to plaintiff and others to the defendant, the cause should be submitted to the jury for final determination.” Hobbs v. Mann, 199 N. C., 532, 155 S. E., 163. It is only when the plaintiff proves himself out of court that nonsuit may be entered on the issue of contributory negligence. Phillips v. Nessmith, 226 N. C., 173, 37 S. E. (2d), 178; Lincoln v. R. R., 207 N. C., 787, 178 S. E., 601.
Discrepancies and contradictions, even in plaintiff’s evidence, are for the twelve and not for the court. Emery v. Ins. Co., 228 N. C., 532, 46 S. E. (2d), 309; Bank v. Ins. Co., 223 N. C., 390, 26 S. E. (2d), 862; Shell v. Roseman, 155 N. C., 90, 71 S. E., 86.
The case is controlled by the second line of authorities cited in Tyson v. Ford, 228 N. C., 778. Compare Bus Co. v. Products Co., ante, 352.