What is the test for contributory negligence?

In addition, the plaintiff did not exercise the standard of care she might have had for her own safety in that she did not use the crosswalk provided. The crosswalk was used by the three lads and they were not involved in the accident. The plaintiff, I am also satisfied, did not look to her right when she crossed the street. Had she looked she would have seen the car approaching as did the other witnesses. This accident occurred at approximately 5:30 p.m., at just about dusk. The streets were wet, as it had been raining. A pedestrian has a duty to exercise some care for her own safety. She simply could not set out on a course to cross this street as she did in this case and escape some liability. I find support for my conclusion in the following words from Nance v. B.C. Elec. Ry., 1951 CanLII 374 (UK JCPC), [1951] A.C. 601 at 611, 2 W.W.R. (N.S.) 665, [1951] 3 D.L.R. 705: … all that is necessary to establish such a defence is to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that the injured party did not in his own interest take reasonable care of himself and contributed, by this want of care to his own injury. For when contributory negligence is set up as a shield against the obligation to satisfy the whole of the plaintiff's claim, the principle involved is that, where a man is part author of his own injury, he cannot call on the other party to compensate him in full … Generally speaking, when two parties are so moving in relation to one another as to involve risk of collision, each owes to the other a duty to move with due care, and this is true whether they are both in control of vehicles, or both proceeding on foot, or whether one is on foot and the other is controlling a moving vehicle. If it were not so, the individual on foot could never be sued by the owner of the vehicle for damage caused by his want of care in crossing the road, for he would owe to the plaintiff no duty to take care.