¶1dissenting.
¶2Although there was no direct evidence as to whether the signal on the east side of the crossing was operational, we believe that the jury could have inferred that it was operational. We are of the opinion that the evidence in this case presented a question for the jury on the issue of gross negligence, and that the decision in Carter v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. Co., 170 Neb. 438, 103 N. W. 2d 152, supports this conclusion.