The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-27

negligence. This rule has been criti-
cised in other jurisdictions as imposing
too rigid en- obligation upon the traveller
and Mr.. G. STUART PATTERSON, q distin-
guished member Of the Pennsylvania
bar, in his treatise on railway accident
law has said: THE Pennsylvania rule
goes further than chat In most other
jurisdictions In that 1t requires the per-
son injured not only to look and listen
but also to stop; yet in most cases one
who approaches the crossing Of a rail-
way line could effectually care for his
safety by looking and listening without
stopping" In view, however, Of the
number OF automobile accidents which
have occurred at railway crossings
within the last few years, we are strongly
inclined to think that the adoption Of
the Pennsylvania rule in this State would
be conducive to the safety Of human life,
IL this automobile in which DR.. GAL
LAGHER and Miss MADIGAN were riding
had been brought to a full stop before
attempting to cross the Long Island
Railroad at Jamaica OIL Sunday evening
the two occupants who were killed would
probably now be living. Under such
circumstances some ono of the persons
in the motor car could hardly have failed
to hear the noise Of the approaching
train. which was running at a speed OF
forty miles an hour.
Under the law Of negligence, however,
as now established in the State of New
York, the measure of care prescribed in
such cases Ia that which prudent per-
son knowing the danger to be
tered and attentive to their safety would
take to shield themselves from injury"
In a leading case on this branch Of the
law, decided by the Court Of Appeals in
1872, the late Judge MARTIN GROVER
said: 1T is settled that this requires a
vigilant use Of the eyes in looking and
Of the carr in listening upon approach
ing a highway crossing to ascertain
whether there is a train approaching,
and that il by the vigilant use Of these
faculties while approaching the crossing
the vicinity of such a train may be dis
covered by the traveller in time to avoid
a collision Herewith. the omission 30 TO
exercise them and thus avoid an injury
is such negligence as will bar a recovery
therefor, although the railroad company
may have bean guilty of negligence IN
tributing thereto" But the same learned
Judge took pains also to declare that
while the law requires OF the traveller
the exercise of the care OF a prudent
person while approaching the crossing,
it does not require him 70 stop for the
purpose Of listening. This" he said,
would be requiring extraordinary care
such as is rarely If ever exercised by the
most prudent"
II is nevertheless true that the amount
Of care to be exercised must always de-
pend upon the nature Of the peril to be
guarded against. Automobiles we're I'M
known when Judge GROVER wrote this
opinion. The tendency Of chauffeurs TO
run great risks in crossing railroad lines
has been manifested so frequently and
with such fatal results that il ought 70
be taken into account in fixing the stand
ard Of caution to be exercised under
such circumstances: and we should view
with satisfaction the enactment of a
statute which would make it the duty of
the drivers of motor cars TO bring their
machines TO a full stop before attempting
to pass over a grade crossing.