The rule thus stated is but an application of the well recognized legal principle that he who takes action which may result in injury to another whose presence in a place of danger he has reason to foresee, owes to such other person the duty of exercising reasonable care not to injure him; and we think there can be no doubt that this principle is recognized and applied in the law as laid down by the courts of North Carolina. In Beck v. Southern Ry. Co., 146 N.C. 455, 59 S.E. 1015, it appeared that there was a custom on the part of the railway company's employees, in going to or from work, to go through, under or between cars when they blocked the tracks and that the company knew of this custom. Plaintiff's intestate was killed as a train of cars was suddenly moved, without warning or signal, while he was passing between them pursuant to this custom.

The evidence is undisputed that plaintiff was paid for the one hour which he spent while waiting at the depot to go to his work at Savannah. Whatever Hughes and plaintiff did in hunting and looking for room and eating accommodations at McAlester, plaintiff's evidence is undisputed that he did go to work and reported for work at the depot at seven o'clock, and it was during this hour that he was hurt, after he had reported for duty. 26 Cyc. 1086-87; Dumphy v. Norfolk Western Railroad, 95 S.E. 863; Railroad v. Zachary, 58 L.Ed. (U.S.) 596; Thomas v. Railroad, 122 N.W. 456; Hartman v. Toyo Kisen Co., 244 F. 567; Rideout v. Pillsbury, 173 Cal. 132; Brownell Imp. Co. v. Sweeney, 223 F. 510; Beck v. Railroad, 59 S.E. 1015. The relation exists when the servant goes upon the master's premises a reasonable time before working hours, and remains until he leaves the premises a reasonable time after working hours, and exists while the servant is resting or in necessary inactivity. Chambers v. Mfg. Co., 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 383; Light Co. v. Sawyer, 47 So. 67; Railroad Co. v. Brock, 49 So. 453; Lumber Co. v. Smith, 95 S.W. 800; Niece v. Creamery Co. 133 N.W. 878; Jacobson v. Mill Co., 119 N.W. 510; Chicago Rock Island Pac. v. Smith, 172 S.W. 829.