v. App. 260], 85 S.W. 22; St. L.S.W. Ry. Co. v. Crabb, 80 S.W. 408; St. L.S.W. Ry. Co. v. Sharp, 131 S.W. 614; G.C. S.F. Ry. Co. v. Jagoe, 32 S.W. 717; Murphy v. C. N.W. Ry. Co., 45 Wis. 222, 30 Am. Rep., 721; Coates v. M.K. T. Ry. Co., 61 Mo., 38; Smith v. Hannibal, etc., Ry., 37 Mo., 287; Fero v. Buffalo S.L.R. Co., 22 N.Y. 209, 78 Am. Dec., 178; Collins v. N.Y., etc., R. Co., 5 Hun, 499, affirmed without opinion in 71 N.Y. 609; A.T. S.F.R. Co. v. Ayers, 56 Kan. 176, 42 P. 722; K.C.F.S. G.R. Co. v. Owen, 25 Kan. 419; St. J. D.C.R. Co. v. Chase, 11 Kan. 47; A.T. S.F. v. Ireton, 63 Kan. 888, 66 P. 987; C.R.Q P.R. Co. v. Lodge, 74 Kan. 847, 85 P. 803; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Cornell, 30 Kan. 35, 1 P. 312; C. A.R. Co. v. Pennell, 94 Ill. 448; Omaha Fair Asso. v. Mo. P.R. Co., 42 Neb. 105, 60 N.W. 330; Slossen v. B.C.R. N.R. Co., 60 Iowa 215, 14 N.W. 244; Bryant v. Cent. V.R. Co., 56 Vermont, 710; C.S.L. P.R. Co. v. Burger, 124 Ind. 275, 24 N.E. 981; Hubbard v. N.Y., etc., R. Co., 72 Conn. 24, 43 A. 550; Confer v. N.Y., etc., R. Co., 146 Pa., 31, 23 A. 202; Ala. V.R. Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co., 82 Miss. 770, 35 So. 304; Ala. V.R. Co. v. Fried, 81 Miss. 314, 33 So. 74; Jefferis v. P.W. B.R. Co., 3 Hous. (Del.), 447; Wild v. B. M.R. Co., 171 Mass. 245, 50 N.E. 533; New Brunswick R. Co. v. Robinson, 11 Can. C.S., 688 (reversing 23 N.B., 323); Hill v. Ontario S. H.R. Co., 13 U.C.Q.B., 505.
DeMatteo v. New Haven, supra, 90 Conn.App. 308. "The general definition of what constitutes contributory negligence is this: It is the doing, or the omitting to do, that which under the circumstances a reasonable man would not have done, or would not have omitted to do, to avoid any injury resulting to himself from the negligence of the defendant." Hubbard v. N.Y., N.H. H.R. Co., 72 Conn. 24, 27, 43 A. 550 (1899). The plaintiff, in walking along the sidewalk, was not bound to keep her eyes continually upon it, but was required to exercise such watchfulness as persons of ordinary prudence would observe.