Court Opinion

ID: 9724585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:03:21.628208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:02.763456
License: Public Domain

Currie, C. J.
(concurring). I concur in the result of reversal with some reluctance. The allegation that American Motors’ driver signaled Yenter to proceed out of the alley “well knowing that it was unsafe and dangerous” to so proceed coupled with the absence of an allegation that the truck driver was seated in the driver’s seat is sufficient to render the complaint nondemurrable. However, based upon statements of counsel made in oral argument, there is little doubt the evidence at trial will disclose that the truck driver was seated in the driver’s seat with his back to the Rebbun car approaching from the south. This being the situation, he would not be chargeable with knowledge of traffic approaching from his rear, and the case should be governed by Devine v. Cook (1955), 3 Utah (2d) 134, 279 Pac. (2d) 1075.
One in Yenter’s position, upon observing that the truck driver so has his back to traffic coming from the rear, would *508have no right to assume the latter’s signal to proceed had any reference to such traffic. It is wholly immaterial whether the truck is parked or merely temporarily stopped so long as the truck driver is seated in the driver’s seat. In either case the signal should only be subject to the reasonable interpretation that the truck is not going to proceed into the path of the car to which the signal is given.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Wilkie joins in this concurring opinion.