Conceding, but not deciding, that this case is not within the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Industrial Commission, *225 and that plaintiff can maintain this action in tbe Superior Court, all tbe evidence, considered in tbe light most favorable to tbe plaintiff, fails to sbow any actionable negligence on tbe part of tbe defendants, or either of them. Tbe judgment as of nonsuit was properly entered. Smith v. Sink, 211 N. C., 725, and cases there cited.

It rather appears that tbe unfortunate injury to plaintiff was one of those accidents which sometimes happen unexpectedly — “an event resulting from an unknown cause, or an unusual or unexpected event from a known cause; chance; casualty.” Black’s Law Dictionary. Crutchfield, v. R. R., 76 N. C., 320; Martin v. Mfg. Co., 128 N. C., 264, 38 S. E., 876; Thomas v. Lawrence, 189 N. C., 521, 127 S. E., 585; Ingle v. Cassady, 208 N. C., 497, 181 S. E., 562.

“An employer is not responsible for an accident simply because it happened, but only when he has contributed to it by some act or omission of duty.” Thomas v. Lawrence, supra; Luttrell v. Hardin, 193 N. C., 266, 136 S. E., 726.

The judgment as of nonsuit being sustained for lack of evidence of actionable negligence, other exceptions upon which plaintiff relies for a new trial need not be considered. Shoemake v. Refining Co., 208 N. C., 124, 139 S. E., 334.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.