*1 171. 263 P.2d 796 hire an have to Board would employee against its will. HAYDEN v. CEDERLUND. makes the authorities examination of An No. 7956. public employment nepotism

it clear Supreme atten- Court of subject legislative Utah. legitimate is a out, framers pointed hasAs been tion.1 Nov. public recognized

of our Constitution one of aspect practice as to

welfare S.B. government.

the three branches of than the Constitutional is no different except nepotism, as it is against

provision rather executive than

applicable to the government, it

judicial branch every upheld, particularly where

should indulged in favor

presumption is protecting

stitutionality and favor of money

taxpayers’ from abuse. opinion says the at which vice

The main are aimed is inef- statutes

anti-nepotism employment

ficiency public aims may be This

relatives. acts, are

anti-nepotism also, probably, against and more to the ex- employing kinfolk

favoritism employables, when the of other

clusion from taxes. At

compensation comes anti-nepotism appears lie the

root philosophy time-honored

traditional ability every one, having the people that

our initiative, equal opportunity has an fortune, ultimately, even, to

advance — Presidency, —without roadblock born of favoritism

terference kinship.

toward 286, 149 Alexander, P.

1. Barton v. 27 Idaho 172- beyond cen- and when was highway

ter line of the from 3 to evidence) (according conflicting siren; flashing red heard no saw light; did not look *2 any sig- time rear vision mirror at after he siren nalled the Defendant stated his turn. Dib- Brady Richard C. Raymond and R. light operating; and red flasher appellant. blee, City, Lake Salt any by signal given did see he respond- Gen., Callister, Atty. R.E. driver; attempting to truck was he ent. truck 3 to left of the and cars behind; trailing that when he realized HENRIOD, Justice. turning, brakes truck was threw on his he defendant judgment for Appeal from a 75 be- and laid down feet of brake marks plaintiff. Re- verdict for notwithstanding a to rest collision. His came to vacate with instructions manded point impact near the the truck about verdict, and notwithstanding the judgment thirty away. feet verdict. judgment on to reinstate trial court denied a for a motion appellant. Costs to verdict, gave case to son, busi- a riding with his Plaintiff was plaintiff a who returned verdict for latter in truck driven partner, a ness which included one effect structions struck p. was 15 h. The at about m. believed that the exercise same driven by a car truck driver look to who peace officer by defendant direction to the rear vision mirror proceeding another to to was he stated was p. Plaintiff him, 45-50 m. h. vehicles behind ascertain there were accident he son injured. His stated proximate out and thrown failure was the open about window of the put hand out collision, guilty of the he would be intersection was 100 tributory imputable negligence (admittedly turn; just a left proaching, to plaintiff plaintiff) could not recov- passed him turn a car started before granted court then a er. The motion for immediately thereafter right; judgment notwithstanding the verdict on occurred, commenced as he crash that the failure of the truck Utah 169 110 Rehearing Utah, v. 1. Cederloff 249 P.2d 213 On Kerr, v. Hart P.2d Co., impending danger Between vision from the rear. his rear inor look back driver to non- two extremes law the where mirror, was failure, negligence is as matter determinable statute,1 under our ordinarily surveyed law, territory is a wide matter say prepared jury. We are not all under violation circumstances requires held statute We have mentioned would the statute turn a left make is about to driver who Certainly ligence. strict exe- traffic, and one oncoming give way to neg- wording thereof exist could not said to chargeable with a turn is cuting such op- judge saving where a properly to choice between life ligence his posed was in property concerned, here driver or distance.2 The where a fail- charged lane, but proper heavy choose to turn into a failing traffic, oncoming heed ure to piece equipment in order to save a child’s Aside to observe traffic behind. complexity life. The of modern traffic failing ute, whether one is present actually might a situation where at- approaching from the observe traffic tempting look rear or a rear proper signal giving after mirror, vision failing to make a traffic, be a would lane fraught violation of the statute be so *3 case, particular of facts on the each based danger with as an omission to be act or as differ minds could not unless reasonable may which lack itself of non-negligence, or negligence fact of to the under the particular facts of a case. arise. law would matter of —whence traffic if said violation of a certainly in law have We would be One of reason, deliberately negligence constitutes turned law without may the not knowing law, engine such violation path speeding of fire but de- of Without pass, hardly an but could attempting it was trial of turning termining the correctness charged with in he be ap- interpretation looking or of the statute without back court’s an intersection at here, we in er- plicable of if were in the to the facts signalling, even middle negligence, warning ruling driver’s procession with no ror the a funeral roadway right “(a) 41-6-69, or left 1953: No or move 1. Title U.C.A. movement can be person until such vehicle an inter unless and shall turn a ” * * * safety. with reasonable is made unless the vehicle section roadway position on the 110 Utah 2. Cederloff 41-6-66, to en or turn a vehicle section Hart v. Kerr. driveway private other or ter a road Annotation 57 A. 175 P.2d See from a direct turn a vehicle course wise L.R. physical proaching facts any, because proxi- may approach- which tend independently thereof, to show that ute or one ing attempted injury.3 may rear have mate cause of change right pass course to the plain- Viewing evidence (as the truck a moment before another car tiff, ordi- recognizing that causation done), had in the ma- was unsuccessful rea- narily jury unless is matter miscalculation, neuver because of ex- minds could differ as to its sonable not may aggregate combine to amake it, lack istence or the we believe essentially jury factual situation relat- were conclude there facts here conjunction privilege appraising with its -proximate ing which, believed credibility the witnesses and reasonable character of the evidence. end result ininds could conclude that the ’ jury resolved doubt favor of the efficiently was not caused or concurred plaintiff, and with deference to learned negligence. driver’s In this trial determination, court’s we believe nection, passed just be- right on the facts do not finding, demand a as a matter attempted.turn, which, along jury’s conclusion was un- facts, .given a rea- other rise hav.e competent reasonable or unfounded evi- sonable those conclusion: dence. signal. had and heeded seen driver’s anticipate It will, McDonough, crockett attempt pass another on the

one WADE, JJ., concur. left in an intersection. such an- Although ticipation preclude of itself a find- n ing WOLFE, given case, in a Chief other Justice. facts, passing of a car to the concur the result on the

right, intending I think it awas for the an give audible or visible of such whether high speed

intention, of a car ligent. v. 3. Co., Utah, Rehearing, 249 P.2d On