This could fairly fix the position of the engine when plaintiff first observed it. Although the question is a close one ( Kilgore v. Southern Pac. Co., 9 Cal.App.2d 506, 509 [ 50 P.2d 116], and cases cited; and Heintz v. Southern Pac. Co., 63 Cal.App.2d 699 [ 147 P.2d 621]) we feel bound by the general rule that the circumstances admit of a reasonable doubt as to whether the questioned conduct of the plaintiff falls within or without the bounds of ordinary care. Accordingly, it must be resolved as a matter of fact rather than of law. ( Startup v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 29 Cal.2d 866, 871 [ 180 P.2d 896].)
Coleman v. C., B. Q. Ry. Co., 287 Ill. App. 483; Bell Cab Co. v. N.Y.N.H. H. Ry. Co., 199 N.E. 726; Wink v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 116 Pa. Sup. Ct. 376, 176 A. 761; Morley v. C., C., C. St. L. Ry. Co., 194 N.E. 811; Bowers v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 85 N.D. 384, 259 N.W. 99; Dolan v. Bremner, 263 N.W. 798; Reives v. C., M. St. P. Ry. Co., 195 Wn. 146, 80 P.2d 406; Crosby v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 187 Minn. 267, 245 N.W. 32; Olson v. C. G.W. Ry. Co., 193 Minn. 533, 259 N.W. 71; Thompson v. Stevens, 106 F.2d 743. (c) Respondent was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Met. Trust Sav. Bank v. C., B. Q. Ry. Co., 150 Ill. App. 407; Johandes v. C., M. St. P. Ry. Co., 260 Ill. App. 328; Scruggs v. B. O. Ry. Co., 287 Ill. App. 310; State ex rel. K.C.S. Railroad Co. v. Shain, 105 S.W.2d 915; Highton v. Penn. Ry. Co., 1 A.2d 570; Serfas v. Lehigh New England Ry. Co., 270 Pa. 306, 113 A. 370; Kilgore v. So. P. Ry. Co., 50 P.2d 116; Dolan v. Bremner, 263 N.W. 798; Philadelphia R. Railroad Co. v. Dillon, 114 A. 62; Kypfer v. T. P. Ry. Co., 88 S.W.2d 528; Fannin v. M. St. P. Ry. Co., 200 N.W. 651; C., C., C. St. L. Ry. Co. v. Gillespie, 173 N.E. 714; Wichita Valley Railroad Co. v. Fite, 78 S.W.2d 714; Mabrey v. U.P. Ry. Co., 5 F. Supp. 397; Inkret v. C., M. St. P. Ry. Co., 86 P.2d 13; Chipman v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 114 S.W.2d 14; Mailhot v. N.Y., N.H. H. Ry. Co., 273 Mass. 277, 173 N.E. 422; Burnett v. L. N. Ry. Co., 58 Ga. App. 64, 197 S.E. 663; Central of Ga. Railroad Co. v. Adams, 39 Ga. App. 577, 147 S.E. 802; Tidwell v. A.B. C. Ry. Co., 42 Ga. App. 744, 157 S.E. 525; Brinson v. Davis, 32 Ga. App. 37, 122 S.W. 643. (d) Conceding for argument only that defendant was negligent, its negligence was not the proximate cause of respondent's injury. Gage v. Boston Me. Ry. Co., 77 N.H. 289, 90 A. 855; Orton v. Penn. Ry. Co., 7 F.2d 36; Pa. Ry. Co. v. Huss, 180 N.E. 919; Simpson v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., 276 Mi
sen v. Minneapolis, St. P. S. S. M. R. Co., 193 Minn. 316, 258 N.W. 511; Trask v. Boston M. R. R., 219 Mass. 410, 106 N.E. 1022; McGlauflin v. Boston M. R. R., 230 Mass. 431, 119 N.E. 955, L.R.A. 1918E, 790; Gage v. Boston M. R. Co., 77 N.H. 289, 90 A. 855, L.R.A. 1915A, 363; Orton v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 6 Cir., 7 F.2d 36; Gulf, M. N. R. Co. v. Holifield, 152 Miss. 674, 120 So. 750; Newsom v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 11 La. App. 50, 122 So. 874; Wichita V. R. Co. v. Fite, Tex.Civ.App., 78 S.W.2d 714; Texas N. O. Ry. Co. v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 27 S.W.2d 331; Jones v. Atchison, T. S. F. R. Co., 129 Kan. 314, 282 P. 593; Simpson v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 276 Mich. 653, 268 N.W. 769; Coleman v. Chicago, B. Q. R. Co., 287 Ill. App. 483, 5 N.E.2d 103; Baker v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 52 Ga. App. 624, 184 S.E. 381; Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Adams, 39 Ga. App. 577, 147 S.E. 802; Kansas C. S. R. Co. v. Briggs, 193 Ark. 311, 99 S.W.2d 579; Gillenwater v. Baldwin, 192 Ark. 447, 93 S.W.2d 658; Kilgore v. Southern P. Co., 9 Cal.App.2d 506, 50 P.2d 116; Calloway v. Penna. R. Co., 4 Cir., 62 F.2d 27; Hendley v. Chicago N.W. R. Co., 198 Wis. 569, 225 N.W. 205; Killen v. New York C. R. Co., 225 App. Div. 8, 232 N.Y.S. 76; Berry v. Dannelly, 226 Ala. 151, 145 So. 663; Duke v. Gaines, 224 Ala. 519, 140 So. 600; Ala. G. S. R. Co. v. Durr, 222 Ala. 504, 133 So. 56; Cooper v. Auman, 219 Ala. 336, 122 So. 351. The statute requiring signals is for the purpose of warning the public of the approach of a train in close proximity to the crossing, and not for the purpose of warning that a train is actually on the crossing.