One approaching a grade crossing must look and listen ; this rule is elementary ; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Freeman, 174 U. S. 379, 19 Sup. Ct. 763, 43 L. Ed. 1014 ; he must exercise all his faculties of sight and hear ing at such short distance as will be ef fectual; Chicago Great Western R. Co. v.
141 Fed. 930, 73 C. C. A. 164.
One, who, on approaching a double-track railroad, looked to the north, and seeing no train, concentrated his attention on a switch engine on the nearer track for a minute and a half, and then, without looking again to the north, started across and was struck by a train coming from that direction on the further track, was held guilty of negligence; Pyle v. Clark, 75 Fed. 644. See Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Griffith, 159 U. S. 603, 16 Sup. Ct. 105, 40 L. Ed. 274 ; Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. Carrington, 3 App. D. C. 101; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Blessing, 67 Fed. 277, 14 C. C. A. 394. It is held negligence for a traveller, after waiting for a train to pass on the near track, to start across behind it without waiting until it had passed far enough to enable him to see a train ap proaching from the opposite direction on an other track ; Stowell v. Erie R. Co., 98 Fed. 520, 39 C. C. A. 145; Delaware & H. Co. v. Flannelly, 172 Fed. 328, 97 C. C. A. 112; Flet cher v. R. Co., 149 Mass. 127, 21 N. E. 302, 3 L. R. A. 743 ; Marty v. R. Co., 38 Minn. 108, 35 N. W. 670; Morrow v. R. Co., 146 N. C. 14, 59 S. E. 158 ; Hughes v. Canal Co., 176 Pa. 254, 35 Atl. 190; Wallenburg v. R. Co., 86 Neb. 642, 126 N. W. 289, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 135 and note. It is held in Pennsylvania that a traveller is required to stop, look, and listen for an approaching train; Pennsyl vania R. Co. v. Beale, 73 Pa. 504, 13 Am. Rep. 753 ; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Fortney, 90 Pa. 323 ; Philadelphia & Reading R. Co. v. Boyer, 97 Pa. 91; Reading & Columbia R. Co. v. Ritchie, 102 Pa. 425. But this rule does not prevail in other courts, and it has been said that without relaxing the rule just stated, "yet when the facts are not clear and simple, and where the existence of con tributory negligence depends upon inferences to be drawn from the evidence, the question must go to the jury for decision ;" Davidson v. R. Co., 179 Pa. 227, 36 Atl. 291. In Penn sylvania, if the view of the track is obstruct ed, a traveler should get down from his vehicle and go forward to a point where he can see; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Beale, 73
Pa. 504, 13 Am. Rep. 753 ; Central R. Co. v. Feller, 84 Pa. 226 ; Kinter v. R. Co., 204 Pa. 497, 54 Atl. 276, 93 Am. St. Rep. 795 ; Man kewicz v. R. Co., 214 Pa. 386, 63 Atl. 604 ; Bistider v. R. Co., 224 Pa. 615, 73 Atl. 940. But in other jurisdictions no such duty is im posed upon the traveler; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Bryant, 141 Ala. 292, 37 South. 370; Vance v. R. Co., 9 Cal. App. 20, 98 Pac. 41; Indianapolis & G. Rapid Transit Co. v. Haines, 33 Ind. App. 64, 69 N. E. 187 ; Kelly v. R. Co., 88 Mo. 534 ; Hinkle v. R. Co., 109 N. C. 472, 13 S. E. 884, 26 Am. St. Rep. 581.
There are three well-recognized exceptions to the rule which requires a traveller to look and listen for approaching trains. These are thus classified in Ormsbee v. R. Co., 14 R. I. 102, 51 Am. Rep. 354: (1) When the view of the track is obstructed, and hence the injured party, not being able to see, is obliged to act upon his judgment at the time; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Griffith, 159 U. S. 603, 16 Sup. Ct. 105, 40 L. Ed. 274 ; L. R. 3 C. P. 368 ; 3 App. Cas. 1155; Webb v. R. Co., 57 Me. 117 ; Craig v. R. Co., 118 Mass. 431; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Ogier, 35 Pa. 60, 78 Am. Dec. 322; (2) where the injured per son is a passenger going to, or alighting from, a train, under the implied invitation and assurance of the company that he may cross the track in safety ; Wheelock v. R. Co., 105 Mass. 203 ; Klein v. Jewett, 26 N. J. Eq. 474 ; Brassell v. R. Co., 84 N. Y. 241; and (3) when the direct act of some agent of the compiny has put the person off his guard and induced him to cross the track without precautions ; e. g. when the flagman beckons to him to cross ; Spencer. v. R. _Co., 29 Ia. 55; Sweeny v. R. Co., 10 Allen (Mass.) 368, 87 Am. Dec. 644 ; Newson v. R. Co., 29 N. Y. 383. To these may be added cases where the traveller (as might happen to a stranger on a dark night) is ignorant of the nearness of the railroad, and when the driver of a horse, which becomes suddenly frightened, is obliged to choose between the risk of an upset or a collision. See Patterson, Ry. Ace. L. §§ 173-183, where the cases on the subject of contributory negligence at grade crossings are collected.