The distinguishing features of some of those cases are sufficiently stated in Leo Butler Co. v. Wilbun, supra, 192 Va. at page 268, 64 S.E.2d at pages 740-41. Similar distinguishing facts were present in others; e.g., in Yellow Cab Co. v. Gulley, supra, 169 Va. 611, 194 S.E. 683, the plaintiff's driver relied on his horn instead of his brakes and drove into an intersection "in the face of a known danger;" in Stillman v. Williams, 181 Va. 863, 27 S.E.2d 186, "suddenly, without warning, or signal, plaintiff turned left and drove his car 2 to 4 feet across the center line of the highway immediately in front of defendant's speeding car;" in Nicholson v. Garland, 156 Va. 745, 158 S.E. 901, the plaintiff was not only traveling at an excessive speed, but also failed to look. In these cases there was no room for difference of opinion among reasonable men as to negligence and hence the question was one of law.

This would be true only if when Allen stopped and looked the approaching car was where he would have been bound to see it and so close that a reasonable man would have concluded it was not safe to cross. If the evidence on that point was such that reasonable men could differ in the conclusion to be reached from it, then that question was for the jury. If reasonable men could not disagree about it, then it was not error to give the instruction in this case. Yellow Cab Co. v. Gulley, supra; Meade v. Saunders, 151 Va. 636, 642, 144 S.E. 711, 712; Stillman v. Williams, 181 Va. 863, 867, 27 S.E.2d 186, 187; Cooke v. Griggs, 183 Va. 851, 856, 33 S.E.2d 764, 766. Allen testified that after he had stopped at the intersection and before starting across he looked both ways. Nobody testified that he did not. Allen's statement to the State trooper a short time after the accident was that he looked both ways, thought the road was clear and went ahead.

We do not agree with the defendants' contention that there was insufficient evidence of negligence on which to submit the case to the jury. Failure to keep a proper lookout is negligence and the duty of maintaining a proper lookout requires not only the physical act of looking with reasonable care, but reasonably prudent action to avoid the danger which a proper lookout would disclose. If the driver of a vehicle looks and does not see what a reasonably prudent person would have seen under the circumstances in time to take the necessary precautions to avoid danger, he is just as guilty of negligence as if he fails to maintain any lookout. Leo Butler Co. v. Wilbun, 192 Va. 263, 64 S.E.2d 738; Via v. Badanes, 189 Va. 44, 52 S.E.2d 174; Stillman v. Williams, 181 Va. 863, 27 S.E.2d 186; Yellow Cab Co. v. Gulley, 169 Va. 611, 194 S.E. 683; Bottling Co. v. Lambert, 196 Va. 949, 86 S.E.2d 156. Code, Sec. 46-233 provides that every driver who intends to "turn or partly turn from a direct line shall first see that such movement can be made in safety.