What duty does a railroad company owe to a person upon its platform, who has no business upon the premises and is there exclusively for his own convenience?

The injury complained of happened in broad daylight and the moving gang plank was in full view of the plaintiff if he had been exercising any care for his own safety. At most the plaintiff was a bare or permissive licensee, and there is no evidence that the injury resulted from wilful or wanton negligence. Therefore, by virtue of both reason and authority the ruling of the trial judge was correct. Quantz v. R. R., 137 N. C., 136, 49 S. E., 79; Peterson v. R. R., 143 N. C., 260, 55 S. E., 618.

The facts do not bring this case within the principle announced in Brigman v. Construction Co., 192 N. C., 791, 136 S. E., 125, or Jones v. R. R., 199 N. C., 1.

Affirmed.