Abe W. Turner

This case involved a wrongful death claim by a father against a driver whose car struck and killed his young son in an Ogden intersection in 1942. A jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages and $345 in special damages, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court should have directed a verdict for lack of negligence evidence, that the jury was misinstructed, and that the damages were excessive. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that conflicting witness accounts created a jury question on negligence and avoidability, that the instructions adequately covered the parties' theories, and that the award was not excessive when adjusted for the dollar's reduced purchasing power since earlier precedents. The court rejected claims that the child necessarily ran into the side of the car or that the instructions failed to address damages factors such as age and earning capacity.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who sued defendant mining company for breach of a 1938 royalty lease agreement to develop tunnel No. 8 on defendant's property, seeking $10 per foot of development work after an injunction in federal condemnation proceedings halted operations and no commercial ore or sale occurred during the lease term. The trial court dismissed the claim but awarded only nominal damages of 10 cents, ruling that the federal injunction prevented performance and that defendant had not breached the lease. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that termination of the lease resulted from the condemnation action rather than any fault or breach by defendant, so plaintiffs were not entitled to the requested damages under the lease terms. The court distinguished the lease from a separate employment agreement on another tunnel for which plaintiffs had already recovered wages.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a railroad worker, Harry O. Pauly, who was injured while working on or near passing tracks and a bridge at Chacra, Colorado, leading to a claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for negligence in failing to provide a safe place to work. The majority opinion concluded there was insufficient evidence to submit to the jury the question of whether the location qualified as a place to work under the Act. In dissent, Justice Turner argued that the facts presented a jury question, as the passing tracks were used for operational purposes like allowing trains to pass and repairing equipment, and that precedents such as Bly v. Southern R. Co. and Bailey v. Central Vermont Railway supported submitting the issue of negligence to the jury rather than directing a verdict. The dissent emphasized that conflicts in evidence and reasonable inferences should be resolved by the factfinder, not the court on appeal.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityfederal power

The case concerned the estate of Martha Ann Benner, who died intestate, and whether her grandchild whom she had adopted could inherit both directly as her adopted child and additionally through succession from his deceased natural mother. The prevailing opinion held that dual inheritance was permitted in these circumstances. The core reasoning was that adoption does not sever the right to inherit from natural relatives absent a contrary statute, and no such limitation applied here to bar the child from claiming in both capacities.

family lawproperty

Plaintiffs sued Holland Furnace Co. over a contract for purchasing and installing a heating system in their home, asserting three claims: that the financing terms were usurious under Utah statute, that the installed furnace was not the model specified in the contract, and that the installation constituted a trespass. After a jury trial on two claims and a bench trial on the usury claim, the trial court entered judgment for the defendant on all counts. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the charges did not exceed the statutory interest limits, that the furnace was substantially equivalent to the contracted model in capacity and value so there was no breach, and that no trespass therefore occurred.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over the appointment of an administrator for the joint estates of Mary Ann Martin, who died intestate in 1917, and her husband Samuel Henry Martin, who died intestate in 1944, with competing petitions from a surviving daughter and grandchildren of deceased children. The district court appointed an administrator to handle both estates together after earlier nominees were rejected. The Utah Supreme Court reversed the order, holding that joint administration was improper under the statute because Samuel's estate did not consist of property descending from Mary Ann. The court also noted that the probate court lacked authority to adjudicate title disputes over property claimed by third parties like Ruby A. Martin and that certain surviving spouses of deceased children were not heirs of Mary Ann requiring notice.

family lawprocedureproperty