What is the test for a jury to find that a train whistle or whistle was not followed or followed by train officials at a level crossing?

But I do not think that this finding can be allowed to stand. I have examined the photographs to which the learned Judge refers, and the evidence relating to the character of the land surrounding the defendants’ right-of-way as it approaches the crossing from the east, and I agree with him in the opinion that the driver of the car, had he looked, should have seen the train coming, even if the statutory warnings had not been given. That it was his duty to look, under the circumstances, is well decided. Thus in Smith v. C.P.R., supra, the learned Chief Justice, at p. 135, says: The reasonable and salutary rule frequently laid down by the court with respect to persons crossing level railway crossings is that they must act as reasonable persons should act and not attempt to cross without looking for an approaching train to see whether they can safely cross. If they should choose recklessly and foolishly to run into danger, they must take the consequences. The rule so requiring persons crossing railway tracks to look for a possible approaching train may not be an absolutely arbitrary one. Circumstances may exist which might excuse their not looking, but those circumstances must be such as would reasonably warrant a jury in finding they were excused from their duty in that regard. It is not enough to prove that some precautions required on the part of the railway, such as whistling or ringing the bell before coming to the crossing, were not observed or followed by the train officials, of which there was evidence on which a jury might so find in this case.