Plaintiff, William A. Ecker, as administrator of the estate of his wife, Margaret A. Ecker, deceased, and for his own benefit, brought this action against defendants, Union Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, and Edward M. Jensen, its engineer, seeking to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s wife, which was alleged to have been proximately caused by negligence of defendants. Hereinafter, William A. Ecker will be called plaintiff and Margaret A. Ecker, deceased, will be called plaintiff’s wife or decedent. Defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company will be called the railroad company, and defendant Edward M. Jensen will be called the engineer, but when speaking of both they will be called defendants.
Plaintiff alleged in his petition that his wife’s death occurred at about 2:46 a. m. on May 11, 1952, when Kis 1940 Chevrolet autоmobile, operated by him in a northerly direction, became stalled upon a rough and pitted railroad crossing installed by defendant railroad com *746 pany, whereat its engine and train, approaching from the west, collided therewith. The alleged negligence of defendants was in effect that the railroad company failed to maintain and keep in repair its crossing where the collision occurred, as required by section 75-220, R. R. S. 1943; and that defendant engineer approached the crossing at an excessive rate of speed without keeping a proper lookout or giving timely warning, and failed to have the railroad company’s engine and train under reasonable control in order to timely avoid collision with plaintiff’s car after it became stalled upon the crossing.
Defendants’ joint аnswer admitted that its engine and train approaching from the west, and a car driven by plaintiff in a northerly direction, collided at or about the time and place alleged, which resulted in the death of plaintiff’s wife,. who was a passenger in plaintiff’s car. Defendants admitted that the railroad company had maintained and repaired the crossing since its installation. They then denied generally and alleged that the proximate cause of the collision and death of plaintiff’s wife was her contributory negligence and the contributory negligence of plaintiff, which negligence was respectively more than slight as a matter of law when compared with any negligence of defendants. Plaintiff’s reply was a general denial.
Upon trial to a jury and at conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, defendants’ motion to dirеct a verdict and dismiss for the reason that the evidence adduced by plaintiff was insufficient to support a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendants or either of them was sustained, and judgment was rendered dismissing plaintiff’s action. Thereafter, plaintiff’s motion for new trial was overruled and he appealed, assigning only: “That the court erred in sustaining defendants’ motion, • made at the close of plaintiff’s casе, for dismissal of the action.” We conclude that the assignment has no merit.
Decision depends upon the undisputed evidence ad
*747
duced in plaintiff’s behalf and rules of law applicable thereto. In arriving at the conclusions hereinafter set forth, we are mindful of the following well-established rules: “ ‘A motion for a directed verdict must for the purpose of decision thereon be treated as an admission of the truth of all material and relevant evidence submitted on bеhalf of the party against whom the motion is directed. Such party is entitled to have every controverted fact resolved in his favor, and to have the benefit of every inference that can reasonably be deduced from the evidence.’ Roberts v. Carlson,
In that connection, as held in Leach v. Treber,
ante
p. 419,
In Guerin v. Forburger,
“Contributory negligence is conduct for which plaintiff is responsible, amounting to a breach of the duty which the law imposes upon persons to protect themselves from injury, and which, concurring and cooper *748 ating with actionable negligence for which defendant is responsible, contributed to the injury complained of as a proximate cause.”
In Bergendahl v. Rabeler,
In Loudy v. Union P. R. R. Co.,
supra,
this court held: “Ordinarily where the negligence of one party is merely passive and potential causing only a condition while that of the other is the moving and effective cause of the accident the latter is the proximate cause.” See, also, Barney v. Adcock,
It is generally the rule that in an action by plaintiff for his own benefit to- recover for the pecuniary injury which he has suffered by reason of the death of his wife, wherein the evidence discloses that plaintiff was guilty of negligence more than slight as a matter of law, which proximately contributed to or caused the accident and death, it is the duty of the court to direct a verdict for defendant. Jones v. Union P. R. R. Co.,
In Moreland v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.,
In Goldman v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co.,
Also, in Kraft v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co.,
Also, in Gulf, Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Freund,
“The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and this case is remanded with directions to dismiss the
*750
action.” See, also, Horsley v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.,
As said by this court in Craig v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. R. Co.,
Likewise, in actions like the one at bar wherein the evidence discloses that plaintiff’s decedent was guilty of negligence more than slight as a matter of law, which proximately contributed to or caused the accident and death, it is the duty of the court to direct a verdict for defendant. In Seiffert v. Hines,
Also, in Gade v. Carlson,
In Krouse v. Southern Michigan Ry. Co.,
We are required to apply such rules to the undisputed evidence in the record before us, which shows substantially as follows: On May 10, 1952, plaintiff and his wife went from their farm home to Paxton in plaintiff’s Chevrolet sedan. Plaintiff drove his car at all times involved. They arrived at Paxton about 6 or 6:30 p. m. and went to a bar where they stayed about an hour. While there plaintiff had a drink of whiskey sour. They then went tо a cafe where they had an evening meal. About 8 or 9 p. m. they went back to the bar and stayed until midnight visiting with friends. There plaintiff drank two' more whiskey sours and his wife probably had some. At midnight they left the bar and went back to the cafe where they visited with friends while they had sandwiches and coffee. About 2 a. m. they left the cafe and drove west on a highway toward the farm home of friends about 1% miles from Paxton. Such home was located on the south side of defendant railroad company’s double parallel tracks running east and west, where a dirt road from north to south crossed over such tracks and went on to their friends’ home. There were open wooden gates located respectively on both the north and south ends of such dirt road at the railroad company’s right-of-way lines.
Plaintiff and his wife, who' sat in the front seat at his right, approached the north end of the crossing as they drove west on the highway north of the railroad tracks, then turned left toward the south upon the dirt road *752 and drove over the railroad crossing to their friends’ home without any difficulty. Plaintiff had driven over that railroad crossing many, many times, and was familiar with its location and condition. Upon arrival at their friends’ home, they saw no light, so, without stopping, they turned around and drove back north towаrd the railroad crossing in order to recross it and go back out to the highway. It was a dark night without fog, but there was frost enough on the ground to leave car tracks. When plaintiff was about even with the south gate, or 200 feet from the tracks, and traveling at about 10 miles an hour, he looked west and saw the headlights of defendant’s locomotive in open country approaching the crossing about a mile or 1% miles awаy. He then went up on the crossing while driving in about the middle of the road. Plaintiff testified that the train was then about one-half or three-fourths of a mile, or even a mile, away.
Plaintiff testified that as he drove over the south rail, one front wheel of his car, which one he didn’t know, dropped “way down deep” in a hole which he never otherwise defined. There his motor died and plaintiff told his wife to get out and go back of the сar. She then got out of the right side of the car and plaintiff shut the car door. When she got out, the train was still three-quarters of a mile away. Thus it will be noted that with full notice and knowledge of the obvious approaching danger she had ample time and opportunity to escape to a place of safety by the exercise of ordinary care, but she did not do so. After she got out, plaintiff looked again and saw the train about one-half mile away, so he started his motor twice and tried to go forward and then backward, but each time the motor died. He then turned off the ignition, took the key in his hand, looked up again and saw the train quite close, but he felt “it was far enough to get out of the way,” so he opened the car door but couldn’t get out of the way in time to avoid the accident, when the locomotive *753 hit the front end of his car and swung it around, whereupon the 'back end hit him and threw him into the train, from which he suffered serious injuries.
Plaintiff testified that when he looked up the last time he “saw the headlight of the locomotive and the locomotive itself of the train bearing down * * * just almost immediately before the accident happened”; that he “didn’t know it was that close or I would have got out sooner.” He heard no whistle or bell prior to the accident, but it is elementary that whether or not there was a whistle blown or bell rung was of no importance or consequence since both the plaintiff and his wife saw or could have seen the train at all times approaching in plain sight for at least one and a quarter miles, and knew of its approaching danger at all times. See Neusbaum v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.,
The train was an extra freight traveling east at about 50 miles an hour, which makes applicable the rule that: “Beyond the limits of cities, villages, and towns no rate of speed of a train is generally in itself unlawful or evidence of negligence.” Kennedy v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co.,
The train was about four-fifths of a mile long and contained 74 loaded cars and 12 empties. Its engine was equipped with an electric headlight which would light the ground about 1,000 feet ahead and also project a light for about one-quarter of a mile in such manner that at that distance you might see a signal box or telephone pole. There was no evidencе that plaintiff’s car headlights were even lighted, much less that they were visible to the engineer. • Also, there is no evidence that the engineer failed to keep a proper lookout or slacken his speed or that he could have done so in time to have *754 stopped the train and avoided the accident.
As a matter of fact, after the accident the train did stop with its rear car 10 or 12 car lengths, or about a block or more, east of the сrossing. Right after the accident, plaintiff’s car was lying on its top, 6 or 7 feet south of the south rail of the crossing, and 16 or 18 feet east thereof. When the highway patrolman arrived a short time after the accident, which occurred at 2:46 a. m., plaintiff’s car was about 9 feet from the south rail, with its front end about 16 feet from the traveled portion of the crossing, and its back end about 25 feet therefrom. However, it had then been moved by rolling it over toward the southeast and upon its right side by part of the train crew and passengers, in order to remove the dead body of plaintiff’s wife which was lying partially under plaintiff’s car. Where she had gone or remained after leaving plaintiff’s car, when she knew that the train was approaching three-quarters of a mile away, during which time she had ample time and opportunity to have escаped to a place of safety before the collision, is not shown by any evidence. The only inference or conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that she was in a place of known danger with ample time and opportunity to' have avoided it by the exercise of ordinary care, but failed to do so, and was thus guilty of contributory negligence, as was plaintiff himself, and that such negligence was respectively more than slight as a matter of law when compared with any negligence of defendants, which barred plaintiff’s right of recovery.
When the ambulance arrived shortly after the accident, it drove across the railroad crossing satisfactorily, then turned around and drove back across it again without any difficulty. The highway patrolman who inspected the accident drove over the сrossing from both directions without any difficulty. His examination of the crossing disclosed that it was rough and bumpy when he hit the rails, but there were no places or holes on it deeper *755 than 3 inches from the top of the rail. The sheriff’s examination disclosed no deep holes on the crossing. Plaintiff’s friends who lived nearby used the crossing almost daily, and even drove over it and back again on May 10, 1952, without difficulty, but they noticed that it was rough, with a fall-away at the rails about as deep as the rails. Plaintiff’s brother, who owned adjacent land and used the crossing regularly, testified that the fall-away from the rails was 6 or 8 inches, or maybe as much as 10 inches. In that connection, however, photographs of the crossing and rails, taken from different directions right after the accident, together with enlargements of some of them, appear in the reсord. Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, they do not disclose any deep pits or holes on the crossing, but only verify the testimony of the patrolman and sheriff heretofore recited. Consequently, the condition of the crossing itself could not be reasonably said to have caused plaintiff’s car to stall thereon. To hold otherwise would be entirely speculative.
We find no competent evidence frоm which it could be reasonably concluded that defendant engineer was negligent in the operation of the train, which could make the doctrine of respondeat superior applicable. Thus, we are required to determine whether or not there was any competent evidence that defendant railroad company was negligent in any manner, which proximately caused the accident and injuries to plaintiff and the death of his wife. In that connection, we may assume for purposes of argument only that defendant railroad company failed to properly maintain and repair the crossing, yet conclude that the contributory negligence of plaintiff himself and his wife barred any recovery as a matter of law. The crossing itself was no more than a condition and not a cause of the accident and death.
Further, contrary to plaintiff’s contention, and in the light of the foregoing evidence, plaintiff and his wife were not entitled to the benefit of the emergency rule,
*756
nor to the doctrine of last clear chance, nor to the rule that they exposed themselves to danger in a reasonable effort to save a third person or his chattels from harm, nor to the rule that the instinct of self-рreservation and disposition of men to avoid personal harm may, in the absence of evidence, raise the presumption that a person killed or injured was in the exercise of ordinary care. The following authorities respectively so dispose of plaintiff’s contention: Roby v. Auker,
For reasons heretofore stated, the judgment of the trial court should be and hereby is affirmed. All costs are taxed to plaintiff.
Affirmed.