¶1 The plaintiff’s testimony is sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the issue of defendant’s alleged negligence. Wall v. Bain, 222 N. C., 375, 23 S. E. (2d), 330; Lincoln v. R. R., 207 N. C., 787, 178 S. E., 601. Accordingly, her demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled. Henson v. Wilson, 225 N. C., 417, 35 S. E. (2d), 245. But we think there was error in the court’s refusal to submit the issue of plaintiff’s alleged contributory negligence to the jury. On this issue, the evidence is inharmonious. The defendant’s testimony makes it a matter for the twelve. Liske v. Walton, 198 N. C., 741, 153 S. E., 318. “The rule applicable in cases of this kind is, that if diverse inferences may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, some favorable to the plaintiff and others to the defendant, the cause should be submitted to the jury for final determination.” Hobbs v. Mann, 199 N. C., 532, 155 S. E., 163. The “more than a scintilla” rule of evidence applies equally to the issues of negligence and contributory negligence. Sebastian v. Motor Lines, 213 N. C., 770, 197 S. E., 539; Pearson v. Luther, 212 N. C., 412, 193 S. E., 739; Moseley v. R. R., 197 N. C., 628, 150 S. E., 184; Moore v. Iron Works, 183 N. C., 438, 111 S. E., 776.
¶2 There was error in refusing to allow the jury to consider the issue of contributory negligence, which entitles the defendant to another hearing.
¶3 New trial.