The rear wheels were on an incline and hence the truck became stalled. The defendant railroad company had no duty to remove snow and ice from the crossing ( Silberstein v. Houston, West St. Pavonia Ferry R.R. Co., 117 N.Y. 293; Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co. v. Howard Sober, Inc., 276 App. Div. 818). The testimony in this record does not show the angle of elevation between the outer and center tracks, or that the crossing was constructed in an unusual or dangerous manner, or not in accord with approved railroad practice. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted.
The question was plainly objectionable, for it called for declarations of a party made subsequent to the injury. ( Roche v. Brooklyn City Newtown R.R. Co., 105 N.Y. 294; Reed v. N.Y. Central R.R. Co., 45 id. 574; Olp v. Gardner, 48 Hun, 169; Ryan v. Porter Manufacturing Co., 57 id. 253.) There is no force in the respondent's contention that the general objection was insufficient, for if it had been taken or had been recast in specific terms, there was no way in which the question could have been made admissible. ( Tozer v. N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co., 105 N.Y. 659; Silberstein v. Houston R.R. Co., 117 id. 293; Tooley v. Bacon, 70 id. 34.) The claim for damages was largely based upon pains in the head and upon mental distress.