LAW OF THE FARM. 307 



may also have been guilty of negligence. And even though the managers of 

 a railroad train may have omitted to observe some positive statutory require- 

 ment, such as ringing the bell or blowing the whistle, it will not excuse want 

 of ordinary care on the part of the traveler. The failure to make use of 

 proper means to ascertain whether a train is approaching before venturing 

 upon the track, is pronounced by the courts to be negligence, as a matter of 

 law. A prudent man in the presence of danger, naturally and ordinarily, 

 makes use "of his faculties to ascertain and avoid it; and he who does not do 

 so, when he has good reason to apprehend danger, fails to exercise the ordinary 

 and reasonable care which the law requires of him, and if he is injured he 

 must abide the consequences, and can recover no damages. 



It is hardly possible that a person of ordinary intelligence and observation 

 can approach a railroad crossing without knowing it. There are generally 

 manifest indications of it. A signal is conspicuously posted and plainly writ- 

 ten : "Railroad Crossing. Look out for the cars; " and he who knowing, or 

 who ought to know, that he is approaching a railroad crossing, advances to the 

 point of intersection without looking or listening, is a reckless, imprudent per- 

 son, and if he is knocked into eternity by the lightning express in the twink- 

 ling of an eye, his friends had better see his remains decently buried and be 

 silent. Such reckless conduct in the presence of danger will constitute that 

 negligence which will preclude any recovery for the injury sustained. No neg- 

 lect of duty on the part of the railroad company will excuse one approaching 

 a crossing from using the senses of sight and hearing, and, if prudence requires, 

 even of feeling, when these may be available. And where the reasonable use 

 of either of such faculties would have given sufficient warning to enable the 

 party to avoid the danger, and he fails to use them, this will be conclusive 

 proof of negligence. If he be deaf and can not hear, he must look. If any- 

 thing obstructs his view of the track in either direction he must advance with 

 caution, and, as I said before, in such cases he had better stop and investigate. 

 Trains very seldom slacken their speed at a crossing. They are not usually 

 required to do so. The law recognizes the fact that locomotives and heavy 

 trains cannot be suddenly stopped, or turn to the right or left, like a foot pas- 

 senger or a team and wagon upon the ordinary highway. They necessarily 

 have the preference at crossings. A train running at the rate of thirty miles 

 per hour will pass over forty-four feet every second of time. So that, if you 

 should see a train coming, care and caution are required of you. It is very 

 difficult to determine the speed of a train when it is approaching you, and, if 

 it is anywhere in sight, it would be quite a proper thing to do to wait until it 

 passes before attempting to cross. 



Where a traveler undertook to cross a track upon the supposition that the 

 train had passed at the usual hour, when, in fact, it was behind time, it was 

 held insutiicient to excuse him from pausing to look or listen. Instead of 

 looking at his watch, he should have looked for a train. 



A few years ago a woman sued the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern rail- 

 road company for injuries received by her at a crossing in Branch county by 

 a collision between the locomotive of a passenger train and the wagon in 

 which she was riding. She was riding with the owner of the team and wagon, 

 who was driving, or undertook to drive, across the track. It was claimed that 

 the accident was caused by the negligence of the company in having their 

 wood piled so as to obscure the track, and that trains coming could not be 

 seen by persons approaching the crossing. They were in a lumber wagon. 

 She was a mere passenger. As they approached the track the woman 



