Where there are permanent obstructions to sight that would make danger invisible, and a transient noise that would make it inaudible, it is held negligence to go forward at once from a place of safety to a place of possible danger, without waiting for hearing to become effective ; Central R. Co. of New Jersey v. Smalley, 61 N. J. L. 277, 39 Atl. 695. But the duty to stop before crossing has not been held to arise except where there are casual noises or temporary obstruc tions to the view ; Merkle v. R. Co., 49 N. J. L. 473, 9 Atl. 680; Keyley v. R. Co., 64 N. J. L. 355, 45 Atl. 811; Dickinson v. R. Co., 81 N. J. L. 464, 81 Atl. 104, 37 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 150. It is negligence per se to attempt to cross tracks hidden by the smoke of a passing train, without waiting for a clear view ; Hovenden v. R. Co., 180 Pa. 244, 36 Atl. 731; Heaney v. R. Co., 112 N. Y. 122, 19 N. E. 422; West Jersey R. Co. v. Ewan, 55 N. J. L. 574, 27 Atl. 1064.
It is also the general rule outside of Pennsylvania, that if the company main tains safety-gates at a crossing, which are closed at the approach of a train, a trav eller who sees them standing open has the right to act upon the implied invitation to cross ; and may do so without looking and listening ; Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Whit ton's Adm'r, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 270, 20 L. Ed. 571; Hinckley v. R. Co., 120 Mass. 257; Ab bett v. Ry. Co., 30 Minn. 482, 16 N. W. 266; Bunting v. R. Co., 14 Nev. 351; Cohen v. R. Co., 14 Nev. 376 ; Kellogg v. R. Co., 79 N. Y. 72; Marietta & C. R. Co. v. Picksley, 24 Ohio St. 654; Eilert v. R. Co., 48 Wis. 606, 4 N.
W. 769. But it is held that failure to give the usual signals does not exempt traveller from looking and listening ; Cooper v. R. Co., 140 N. C. 209, 52 S. E. 932, 3 L. R. A. {N. S.) 391 and note, 6 Ann. Cas. 71; Scho field v. Ry. Co., 114 U. S. 615, 5 Sup. Ct. 1125, 29 L. Ed. 224; or a failure to give proper and statutory signals ; Rodrian v. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 526, 26 N. E. 741; Johnson's Adm'r v. Ry. Co., 91 Va. 171, 21 S. E. 238; contra, Turner v. Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. (Tex.) 30 S. W. 253; Cahill v. Ry. Co., 92 Ky. 345, 18 S. W. 2. The signal of a flagman to cross will not relieve one from the duty to look and listen before driving upon a railroad crossing; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Rosewater, 157 Fed. 168, 84 C. C. A. 616, 15 L. R. A. (N. 803, 13 Ann. Cas. 851; Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Frantz, 127 Pa. 297, 18 Atl. 22, 4 L. R. A. 389; Berry v. R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 141, 4 Atl. 303; Ellis v. R. R., 169 Mass. 600, 48 N. E. 839. But other cases hold that one may rely wholly upon the invitation of the flagman or the open gate ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Webb, 90 Ala. 185, 8 South. 518, 11 L.
R. A. 674; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Clough, 134 Ill. 586, 25 N. E. 664, 29 N. E. 184.
The• fact that one's sight or hearing is defective does not exonerate him from the exercise of due care, but rather raises the standard to be observed by him. The em
ployes of the company have a right to pre sume that his sight and hearing are nor mal; and he must observe all the added precautions necessary to make him as safe as if his faculties were normal. If he does not, he is guilty of contributory negligence ; Laicher v. R. Co., 28 La. Ann. 320; Purl v. Ry. Co., 72 Mo. 168 ; Cogswell v. R. Co., 6 Or. 417. Nor will deafness; Smith's Adm'r v. Ry. Co., 146 Ky. 568, 142 S. W. 1047, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 193; Williams v. Ry. Co., 139 Ia. 552, 117 N. W. 956 ; Birmingham Ry. & El. Co. v. Bowers, 110 Ala. 328, 20 South. 345 ; Mitchell v. Ry. Co., 153 N. C. 116, 68 S. E. 1059; Schmidt v. Ry. Co., 191 Mo. 215, 90 S. W. 136, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 196 ; Hall v. Ry. Co., 168 Mass. 461, 47 N. B. 124. See Smith's Adm'r v. Ry. Co., 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 193 note; nor haste and mental preoccupa tion; Riedel v. Traction Co., 63 W. Va. 522, 61 S. E. 821, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1123.
Generally the duty to look before crossing a railroad track is not discharged by look ing only once. It is a continuing duty ; Wal lenburg v. Ry. Co., 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 135 n., citing Kelsay v. Ry. Co., 129 Mo. 362, 30 S. W. 339; Gangawer v. R. Co., 168 Pa. 265, 32 Atl. 21; Walsh v. R. Co., 222 Pa. 162, 70 Atl. 1088 ; Southern Ry. Co. v. Jones, 106 Va. 412, 56 S. E. 155; which must be ob served until danger is passed; Griffle v. Co., 80 Ark. 186, 96 S. W. 750; Doherty v. Ry. Co., 118 Mich. 209, 76 N. W. 377, 80 N. W. 36; unless there are exculpatory circum stances ; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Hitt, 76 Ark. 224, 88 S. W. 911; Stevens v. By. Co., 67 Mo. App. 356.
That the team of the person crossing is be yond the control of the driver is held an ex cuse for his failure to look and listen and if necessary to stop; Sarles v. Ry. Co., 138 Wis. 498, 120 N. W. 232, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 415, 16 Ann. Cas. 952; Southern By. Co. v. Hobbs, 151 Ala. 335, 43 South. 844. He is not necessarily negligent because he did not look at the most advantageous point ; Wallenburg v. Ry. Co., 86 Neb. 642, 126 N. W. 289, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 135.
As to the power of the states to require railroad companies to change, alter, or abol ish grade crossings, see 4 Thomp. Corp. § 5505 ; POLICE POWER. As to signals at cross ings ; Welsch v. R. Co., 72 Mo. 451, 37 Am. Rep. 413; as to care at crossings; Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Com., 13 Bush. (Ky.) 388, 26 Am. Rep. 207.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is a presumption that one who was killed while crossing a railroad track at night stopped, looked and listened before crossing ; Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Land rigan, 191 U. S. 461, 24 Sup. Ct. 137, 48 L. Ed. 262.
See RALLROAD ; NEGLIGENCE.