What is the test for determining whether a violation of a traffic light is a proximate cause of injury?

The court in Meincke v. Oakland Garage, Inc., 11 Cal.2d 255, 79 P.2d 91, considered a factual situation where (1) a party was violating an ordinance designed to prevent the very type of injury suffered; (2) the violation continued to the very moment of impact; and (3) the injury would not have occurred but for the violation of the ordinance. The court said (p. 256, 79 P.2d p. 92): [6 Cal.App.3d 129] 'Under such circumstances there is no room for reasonable minds to differ and (the) violation of the ordinance becomes a proximate cause of (the) injury as a matter of law.'

Although defendant does not expressly agree, it is clear that the first requirement of Meincke v. Oakland Garage, Inc., supra,--violation of an ordinance designed to prevent collisions--is present here. The second factor also appears; the violation continued to the instant of the collision. It is the issue of the existence of the third--that the collision would not have occurred but for the violation--that defendant insists was properly left to the jury. The argument seems to be that the jury could reasonably have found that the accident might nevertheless have happened even if the train were traveling at the speed limit of 35 miles per hour or some lesser speed. We disagree.