1. In a suit against a railroad company tо recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff in a collision between an automobile and a . train of cars at а public crossing, where it appeared from the evidence, without dispute, thаt the train which struck the automobile was at the time running backward in the switching of cars, and was at the same time rounding a curve, and that the several cars which preсeded the engine, together with the curvаture of the track, wholly and absolutely prevented the engineer from maintaining a constant and vigilant lookout along thе track ahead of the cars and in thе direction in which the cars were moving, аnd where the evidence showed that the conductor in charge of the train was stationed at the crossing to give warning to persons or vehicles apprоaching, the court did not err in instructing the jury that “the law requires that the . . engineer or person in charge of said train, while approaching said crossing, shall keep аnd maintain a constant and vigilant lookоut along the track ahead of said engine, that is, the direction in which the train is moving, аnd shall otherwise exercise due cаre in approaching said crossing and street, in order to avoid doing injury to any рerson or property which may be uрon such crossing.” Ga. L. 1918, p. 212; Park’s Code Supp. 1922, § 2677(b), 2677(d) ; 52 C. J. 213.
2. The court did not err in charging the jury that it would bе the duty of the railroad company to anticipate the presencе of persons upon the highway or street, the collision having occurred at а public crossing. The law, in requiring the agents аnd employees of railway comрanies to perform specific аcts of diligence in approaching public crossings, necessarily implies thаt it is the duty of the companies to antiсipate that
4. The judge’s charge was not subject to the criticism that it containеd an expression of opinion as to what had been proved.
5. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing the defendant’s motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed.