¶1I concur.
¶2As I have stated heretofore, I doubt whether the principles governing the case of Nikoleropoulos v. Ramsey, 61 Utah 465, 214 P. 804, where the pedestrian was rightly on the highway are the same as those which should govern the facts in Dailey V. Midwestern Dairy Products Co., 80 Utah 381, 15 P. 2d 309, where the defendant’s truck was wrongly left on the highway unattended and without any warning signals. I am inclined to the view that there were elements in the Dailey case which made it a jury case. Be that as it may, I accept the distinction between the instant case on the one hand and grouping the Nikoleropoulos and Dailey cases on the other hand for the purpose of establishing a difference in the instant case and the other two cases. It suffices to support a reversal. I therefore concur.