The pivotal question before this Court challenges the ruling of the trial court in granting motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of plaintiff’s evidence. If it be conceded that there is suffi*417cient evidence to take the case to the jury on the issue as to negligence of defendant, in any of the respects alleged, the evidence indicates clearly and inescapably that plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence was at least a contributing cause- of any injury and damage he may have sustained when the automotive truck operated by him ran into the side of defendant’s train as it passed over the intersection of the road on which plaintiff was proceeding and the railroad tracks of defendant.
The plaintiff thus proves himself out of court. His negligence need not be the sole proximate cause of the injury. It is enough if it contributes to the injury. See Bailey v. R. R., 223 N.C. 244, 25 S.E. 2d 833, and cases cited.
In this connection, decisions of this Court uniformly hold that “a railroad crossing is itself a notice of danger, and all persons approaching it are bound to exercise care and prudence, and when the conditions are such that a diligent use of the senses would have avoided an injury, a failure to use them constitutes contributory negligence and will be so declared by this Court,” as stated by Brown, J., in Coleman v. R. R., 153 N.C. 322, 69 S.E. 251. See also Godwin v. R. R., 220 N.C. 281, 17 S.E. 2d 137.
And in the Godwin case, supra, Stacy, C. J., wrote: “We have said that a traveler has the right to expect timely warning . . . but the failure to give such warning would not justify the traveler in relying upon such failure or in assuming that no train was approaching. It is still his duty to keep a proper lookout . . .” See cases cited.
But the plaintiff in the case in hand says and contends that he did not know there was a railroad crossing at the place of collision in question. In this connection, we find in Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law and Practice, Vol. 3, p. 214, Sec. 1814, this clear statement of the applicable principle of law in such cases: “The mere fact, however, that the driver is unfamiliar with the locality generally or does not know by recollection, as distinguished from observation, the character of the neighborhood, does not authorize him to drive heedlessly in disregard of the possible presence of crossings and then claim the benefit of the protection given those who are ignorant of the presence of a crossing. If, as he proceeds, his senses furnish him with sufficient information to apprise him of the existence of a crossing, he, although theretofore unconscious of its existence, is under the same duties in approaching it as any traveler who is independently acquainted with its existence.
“Moreover, he is not relieved from the responsibility of exercising his senses and avoiding a collision with a train thereon by reason of his ignorance of the train’s existence, if its presence is made to appear by such indications and signs of there being a crossing near at hand as to make it obvious to anyone reasonably using his ordinary powers of observation. *418It is. no. excuse that bis attention is so occupied in tbe operation of bis automobile as to withdraw bis attention from tbe unmistakable signs of .a-railroad crossing open and apparent to any driver-in bis situation wbo is .watching tbe road ahead.”
Among the cases cited in support of tbe above text are: The case of Gelbin v. N. Y., N. H., & H. R. Co., 62 Fed. 2d 500, in which Manton, J., of Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, declared: “If tbe decedent was advised of tbe existence of tbe crossing as-be proceeded, tbe degree of care imposed upon him was that of a wayfarer wbo did know of tbe crossing.” ' . .
And the case of Piscitello v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 116 Conn. 638, 166 A. 61, which is strikingly similar in factual situation to case in band. There Avery, J., speaking for tbe Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, -after relating tbe facts, bad this to say: “A traveler on. a highway, approaching a railroad crossing, is not relieved from tbe responsibility of exercising bis senses and avoiding collision with a train thereon by reason of bis ignorance of tbe existence of such a crossing if tbe presence of tbe railroad is obvious to anyone reasonably using ordinary powers of observation,” citing several cases from Connecticut and other states.
. These principles are applicable to facts of case in hand. When so applied it is patent that as plaintiff proceeded along tbe by-pass or truck lane, that is, tbe highway, be was required to see and bear what a reasonably prudent person would see and bear under tbe circumstances..
His evidence discloses that: It was a fair day. Tbe highway from a point approximately 200 feet north of tbe intersection was nearly straight. Within that distance there was nothing to obstruct tbe view of tbe intersection, or of an engine tbe front of which bad reached tbe eastern edge of tbe intersection. Tbe tee-irons in tbe track in tbe intersection could be seen 40 to 50 feet away. On both sides of the highway tbe railroad could be seen for a distance of 100 feet. There were coal cars on tbe south track east of, and within 7 to 10 feet of tbe eastern side of, tbe intersection. From a point 90 feet north of tbe intersection there was nothing to. obstruct plaintiff’s view or to keep him from seeing an engine or train from tbe east, within 120 feet of tbe intersection. From points nearer the intersection visibility to tbe east was greater. When plaintiff first saw tbe engine, tbe front of it was in tbe center of tbe intersection. It was 8 feet away, and bis truck ran into tbe engine after tbe front of it was 20 feet west of tbe intersection. And tbe point of impact was 30 to 40 feet back of tbe front of engine. Under these circumstances-portrayed by plaintiff’s evidence, it is patent that be was not exercising due care under tbe circumstances. And it is so held. -
Authorities cited by plaintiff have been given due consideration, and ar.e not in conflict with this ruling.
*419Other assignments of error have been given due consideration, and in them prejudicial error is not made to appear.