ClaRKSoN, J.

The defendant introduced no evidence, and at the close of plaintiff’s evidence moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit. O. S., 567. The court below overruled the motion, and in this we think there is no error.

In Hamilton v. Lumber Co., 156 N. C., at p. 523-4, Hoke, J., clearly states the law as follows: “It is well understood,'however, that an employer of labor may be held responsible for directions given or methods established, of the kind indicated, by reason of which an employee is injured, as in Noble v. Lumber Co., 151 N. C., 76; Shaw v. Mfg. Co., 146 N. C., 235; Jones v. Warehouse Co., 138 N. C., 546, and, where such negligence is established, it is further held, in this jurisdiction, that the doctrine of assumption of risk, in its technical acceptation,. is no longer applicable (Norris v. Cotton Mills, 154 N. C., 475; Tanner v. Lumber Co., 140 N. C., 475), but the effect of working on in the presence of conditions which are known and observed must be considered and determined on the question whether the attendant dangers were so obvious that a man of ordinary prudence and acting with such prudence should quit the employment rather than incur them. Bissell v. Lumber Co., 152 N. C., 123; and, on the issues, as to plaintiff’s conduct, the fact that the particular service was rendered with the knowledge and approval of the employer or his vice-principal or under his express directions, if given; also, the employee’s reasonable apprehensions of discharge in case of disobedience, etc., may be circumstances relevant to the inquiry. Hicks v. Mfg. Co., 138 N. C., 322.”

Walker, J., in Tate v. Mirror Co., 165 N. C., at p. 279, lays down the rule in human terms, as follows: “The law applies the golden rule, that the master must do for the servant what, if placed in the same situation and under the same circumstances, he would do for himself. There, is no reason of logic or justice which requires that he should do less. This rule has been applied by us to causes here with great frequency and uniformity. We have not departed in the least from its essential principle in a single case that we are aware of. It is perfectly just to the employer and is required by a proper sense of fairness to the employee. It is the abstract maxim which we are constantly told should govern our conduct towards our fellow-man in everyday affairs of life, and it is so commendable in itself as to call for a strict observance of it when we come to the practical discharge of our duties to others, especially those in subordinate positions, and who must depend for their safety upon the care of their superiors. We said in Pigford v. R. R., 160 N. C., at pp. 100 and 101: “It is well understo-od, however, that an em *798 ployer of labor may be held responsible for directions given or methods established of the hind indicated, by reason of which an employee is injured.” (Italics ours.)

Tbe charge of the court below is not in the record; it is presumed that the law applicable to the facts were properly presented to the jury. We can find

No error.