Grade Crossing

A place where one highway crosses another: in particular, a place where a railroad is crossed at grade by ■a. public or private road, or by another railroad. The term is most frequently used with reference to the crossing of a public highway by a railroad. At such a crossing it is the duty of the railroad company to construct and maintain safe and proper crossings; and it is liable for all injuries resulting from a failure to perform this duty; Louisville, N. A. & •C. Ry. Co, V, Smith, 91 Ind. 119; Farley v. R. Co., 42 la. 234; Paducah & B. R. Co. v. Com., 80 Ky. 147; State v. R. Co., 36 Ohio St. 4.36; Pittsburg, F. W. & C. Ry. Co. v. Dunn, 56 Pa. 280; but the most numerous class of cases relating to grade crossings, arises from accidents to persons who are using the crossing, caused by the operation ■of trains thereon. The rule that the roadbed and track of a railroad company are Its private property, and that one who gets thereon does so at his own peril, does not apply to a highway crossing; Florida Cent. & R. R. Co. v. Williams, 37 Fla. 406, 20 South. 558. At such a place the company hold its roadbed, subject to* the right of the public to cross it; and that circumstance creates mutual rights and obligations. Both parties must use ordinary care in the exercise of their own rights. Theoretically, the rights of the company and a person who intends to cross are equal; practically, the more onerous duty of avoiding danger rests upon the latter, on account of the difficulty in stopping a train in rapid motion. But this fact, on the other hand, imposes upon the railroad company the duty of using every practicable agency consistent with the operation of its trains, to give due warning of their approach; Rockford, R. I. & St. L. R. Co. V. Hillmer, 72 111. 235; Western & A, R. Co. v. King, 70 Ga. 261; Indianapolis & V. R. R. Co. v. Mc Lin, 82 Ind. 4.35; Louisville, C. & L. R. Co. v. Goetz, 79 Ky. 442, 42 Am. Rep. 227; Baltimore & O. R. Co. V. Owings, 65 Md. 502, 6 Atl. 329; Weber v. R. Co,, 58 N. Y. 451; Kay V. R. Co., 65. Pa. 269, 3 Am. Rep. 628. Thus, the whistle must be sounded on approaching a crossing; Grand Trunk Ry. Co, V. Ives, 144 U. S. 408, 12 Sup. CL 679, 36 L. Ed. 485; Hinkle v. R. Co., 109 N. C. 472, 13 S. E. 884, 26 Am. St Rep. 581; Reeves v. R. Oo., 30 Pa, 454, 72 Am. Dec. 713; Baltimore & O. R. Co. V. Owings, 66 Md. 502, 5 Atl. 329; and the better view is that watchmen should be stationed at every much-used this rule Is not uniformly held; and some courts have decided that the railroad company, unless required by statute, is under no obligation to give warning; Brown v. R, Co„ 22 Minn. 165; Favor v. R. Corp„ 114 Mass. 350, 19 Am. Rep. 364. This duty is now, however, generally prescribed by statute; and a failure to discharge it is in such a case always evidence of negligence, though not conclusive; Barber v. R. Co., M S. C. 444, 13 S. E. 630; Railway Co. v. Howard, 90 Tenn. 144, 19 S. W. 116; Augusta & S. R. Co. v. Mc Blmurry, 24 Ga. 75; Hanlon v. R, Co., 129 Mass. 310; Funston v, Ry. Co., 61 la. 452, 16 N. W. 518; Atlanta & W. P. R. V. Wyly, 65 Ga. 120; Lewis v. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 496, 26 N. E. 357; Nash v. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 715, 26 N. E. 266; Hinkle v. R. Co., 109 N. C. 472, 13 S. E. 884, 26 Am. St. Rep. 581; Clark v. R. Co., 64 N. H. 323, 10 Atl. 676. The railroad company is not alone bound to the exercise of care in approaching a crossing. A traveller who intends to cross is also bound to use ordinary prudence, by which is to be understood such as is fairly commensurate with the risk. He must therefore, look for an approaching train, if he has a fair view of the track; and if his view is obstructed, he must also listen. If he does not do so, and is injured, he cannot recover; but if he does, and is nevertheless injured by the negligence of the company, the latter is liable to him; Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. V. W’^allace, 110 111. 114; Lang v. Holiday Creek R. & Coal Min. Co., 49 la. 469; Murray v. R. Co., 31 La. Ann. 490; Cincinnati, H. & I. Ry. Co. V. Duncan, 143 Ind. 524, 42 N. E. 37; Freeh v. R. Co., 39 Md. 574; Wright v. R. Co., 129 Mass. 440; Cdrney v. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 220, 48 N. W. 912; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Rlghter, 42 N. J. L. 180; Haas v. Ry. Co., 41 Wis. 44. It is not necessary to leave to the jury whether a prudent man would look and listen before attempting to cross a railroad track. It Is the duty of the court to declare that a failure to do so is negligence; Pyle v. Clark, 75 Fed. 644; it is a conclusion of law; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v, Martin, 61 Ark. 549, 33 S. W. 1070; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Talmage, 15 Ind. App. 203, 43 N. B. 1019; Philadelphia & R. R. Co. v. Peebles, 67 Fed. 591, 14 C. C. A. 5.55; Horn v. R. Co., 54 Fed. 301, 4 C. C. A..346. 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 hearing at such short distance as will be effectual; Chicago Great Western R. Co. v. Smith, 141 Fed. 930, 73 C. C. A. 164. One, who, on approaching a double track 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 & O. R. Co. V. Griffith, 159 U. S. 603, 16 Sup. Ct 105, 40 L. Ed. 274; Baltimore & Potomac B. Co. V. Carrington, 3 App. D. C. 101; New York, N. H. & H. B. 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 approaching from the opposite direction on another track; Stowell v. Erie B. Co., 98 Fed. 620, 39 C. C. A. 145; Delaware & H. Co. v. Flannelly, 172 Fed. 328, 97 C. C. A. 112; Fletcher V. R. Co., 149 Mass. 127, 21 N. B. 302, 3