Tbe evidence in this case tends to prove that tbe plaintiff accompanied her - husband to defendant’s station at Waynesville for tbe purpose of seeing him off as a passenger for Asheville. For tbе purpose of accommodating the increased travel in summer, defendant bad daily an extra coach left at a *697 certain place on tlie side track close to tbe station at Waynes-ville, wbicb was attached to tbe train wben it arrived at Waynes-ville from'tbe west. It was customary to opеn tbis extra coacli some ten minutes before train time and to permit passengers to enter it. On tbe date of tbe injury tbe car was standing at tbe usual place on tbe side track, where passengers were accustomed to board it. The plaintiff and her husband stepped on tbe platform of this'car, with tbe view of entering it, about two minutes before train time, but finding tbe door locked, they were on tbe point of steрping off, wben tbe collision occurred wbicb caused tbe plaintiff’s injury. They were not on tbe platform еxceeding two minutes. At tbis time there was a large concourse of persons at tbe station, waiting for tbe train. Under these conditions, and just as plaintiff and her husband were about to leave tbe platform, an еngine was run into tbe side track, at a dangerous rate of speed, variously estimated by tbe witnesses at frоm fifteen to thirty miles an hour, and was caused to strike a car standing at tbe station platform and to drive it against tbe car upon wbicb plaintiff and her husband were standing, with such force that tbe ends of tbe two cars buckled and rose from tbe track, and tbe shock threw tbe plaintiff down and injured lier.
Tbe learned counsel fоr defendant, in bis argument before tbis Court, rested bis defense very largely upon tbe defense of contributory negligence upon tbe part of tbe plaintiff in attempting to enter the car. We do not think there is any fоundation for such defense upon tbe facts of tbe case. Tbe evidence discloses no negligеnt conduct upon tbe part of the plaintiff, while on tbe ear, wbicb in tbe least degree contributed tо tbe injury she received. It will not be contended in tbis day and generation that it is negligence for a wife to еscort her husband to tbe station and tc board a ear momentarily to bid him g-ood-bye.
Tbe defense must prоperly rest upon tbe theory that tbe plaintiff was on tbe car without defendant’s consent, and that, being а trespasser, tbe defendant owed her no duty, except to refrain from willful injury, and therefore as to hеr is guilty of no negligent conduct. Tbis view of the evidence is properly 'presented under tbe first issue.
*698
It is undoubtedly true that if plaintiff bad been a trespasser, stealing a ride, as in
Bailey v. Railroad,
Nor do we think tbe husband and wife were wholly unwarranted in attempting to enter the car at the time and under the circumstancеs in evidence. The car was an extra coach, brought up every morning from Asheville and left at Vayirеsville for the afternoon train returning there. It usually remained at the station on the side track at the plаce the accident occurred. It was the defendant’s custom to open the car at that рlace ten minutes before train time, and passengers for Asheville at once boarded it and, upоn arrival of the train, it was coupled on.
In accordance with this custom, inaugurated and permitted by defendant, plaintiff and her husband boarded the car two minutes before train time in order that he might secure а seat. Finding it locked, they started back to the station, remaining *699 oil the car platform in all not more than two minutes, but were caught in the collision. There is no evidence that they lingered on the platform unduly long оr did any act that a person of reasonable prudence would not be expected to dо under the circumstances. We think his Honor’s first impressions of this case were the best:
The cause is remanded, with direction to enter judgment for the damages ($350) assessed by the jury.
Reversed.