Case Name: SPILA v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-12-08
Citations: 132 N.Y.S. 151
Docket Number: 
Parties: SPILA v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 132
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
SPILA v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 8, 1911.)
Railroads (§ 328 ) — Accident at Crossing — Contributory Negligence.
Where a person riding along a highway on a bicycle attempted to pass over railroad tracks at a grade crossing on a cloudy and rainy day, and at a time when his view of the tracks was entirely obscured by a dense smoke from a passing train, he is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 1057-1070; Dec. Dig. § 328. ]
Woodward, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, Westchester County.
Action by Tomassina Spila, administratrix, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before JENKS, P. J., and THOMAS, CARR, WOODWARD, and RICH, JJ.
John F. Brennan,, for appellant.
Sydney A. Syme, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec, & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r-Indexes

Opinion:
JENKS, P. J.
The respondent's intestate, a man of mature years, and a companion, both riding on bicycles in a highway, approached a place where the highway crossed at grade the tracks of the defendant. The intestate attempted to pass over the tracks, but was struck and killed by a south-bound train of the defendant. The companion, who rode back of the intestate, saved himself by turning his vehicle into a telegraph post. This companion, the sole witness of the casualty called by the plaintiff, testifies that the two men looked for any possible danger first when they were 60 feet away, and again when 5 feet away, but that at the time — 5 p. m. on a cloudy and rainy June day— their view was obscured wholly by the smoke emitted by the locomotive engine of a recent north-bound train, which smoke still hung heavy and low over the tracks. And he admits that, regardless of any permanent physical obstruction to a view, they could not have seen the oncoming train because of this dense smoke. This testimony indicates contributory negligence as matter of law; for, to quote thfe language of Gray, J., in Heaney v. L. I. R. R. Co., 112 N. Y. 122, 19 N. E. 422, applicable to the intestate:
"It was unquestionably- his duty to await the disappearance of the smoke, and thus to be reasonably sure that he had a clear crossing."
See, too, Keller v. Erie R. R. Co., 183 N. Y. 67, 75 N. E. 965.
The judgment and order must be reversed, and a new trial must be granted; costs to abide the event.
THOMAS, CARR, and RICH, JJ" concur.