#### ROBERT PARKER by His Next Friend, W. P. PARKER, v. CHARLOTTE ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 5 May, 1915.)

Electricity — Street Railways — Trials—Evidence—Nonsuit.

In an action against an electric railway company to recover damages for an injury alleged negligently to have been inflicted by it upon a 13-year-old boy, tbe evidence tended only to show tbat the plaintiff, with other boys, was upon tbe defendant’s railway bridge, placed underneath which, at a distance of 12 .inches, ran tbe defendant’s feed wire; tbat tbe plaintiff and others were playing on this bridge, bad reached down endeavoring to touch tbe feed wire, and upon being dared by tbe others to do so, tbe plaintiff succeeded in touching tbe wire and received tbe injury complained of. Held, tbe consequences resulting in tbe injury could not reasonably bave been foreseen by tbe defendant and affords no evidence of its actionable negligence.

*69Appeal by plaintiff from Shaw, J., at November Term, 1914, of MeckleNbueg.

Civil action. At tbe conclusion of tbe plaintiff’s evidence tbe court sustained tbe motion to nonsuit. Tbe plaintiff appealed.

Brevard Nixon, B. T. Cansler, J. D. McCall and C. B. Fetner for plaintiff.

Osborn, Coche & Robinson for defendant.

BeowN, J.

Tbis action is brought by tbe plaintiff, a boy 13 years of age, to recover damages for an injury sustained on account of bis touching an electric feed wire of tbe defendant. Tbe evidence proves that tbis feed wire ran under a bridge maintained by tbe defendant over a cut between tbe city of Charlotte and tbe village of Hoskins.

Tbe ears of tbe defendant ran underneath tbis bridge, and under it are its trolley wires and feed wires. Tbe feed wire is about 12 inches below and underneath tbe bridge. Several boys were playing on tbis bridge, tbe plaintiff being among them. One of tbe boys reached down through tbe floor of tbe bridge, endeavoring to touch tbe feed wire. He failed to do so, and some one dared tbe plaintiff to touch it. Tbe plainr tiff got down on bis knees on tbe floor of tbe bridge, reached his band between tbe lower railing and floor, and succeeded in touching tbe feed wire and received a shock, from which be was injured.

Upon this state of facts, we think his Honor properly sustained tbe motion to nonsuit.

Tbe case differs very materially from Benton’s case, where an uninsulated wire was allowed to run through tbe top of a tree which boys were in tbe habit of climbing. It would seem that tbe defendant in tbis case had exercised every possible care in tbe disposition of its wires and bad no reason to expect that a 13-year-old boy would lay down on tbe bridge and endeavor to touch them.

Tbe injury to tbe plaintiff evidently resulted from bis own independent act in purposely getting tbe wire within bis reach; and under tbe circumstances such action could not have reasonably been foreseen. Trout v. Electric Co., 84 Atl., 967.

Affirmed.