Moapa Garden Co. v. San Pedro, L.A. S.L.R. Co., 45 Utah 141, 143 P. 218, and Badertscher v. Independent Ice Co., 55 Utah 100, 184 P. 181. In Frank v. Myers, 60 P.2d 144, 145 (hearing denied by Supreme Court), 16 Cal.App.2d 16, in overruling the contention of respondent that an order of the trial court directing a verdict is not reviewable absent an express exception thereto, the appellate court construed such order as an instruction to which, under the California code, an exception is deemed taken. A further reason for the ruling of the appellate court is thus expressed:
On the contrary it appears that Mrs. Hofman was more concerned with the safety of her son and close friend than otherwise. There is here no conscious reckless disregard of their safety as was involved in cases such as those relied upon by the plaintiffs (see Wright v. Sellers, supra; Jones v. Hathway, 22 Cal.App.2d 316 [ 70 P.2d 681]; JackieCoogan Prod., Inc., v. Industrial Acc. Com., 21 Cal.App.2d 225 [ 68 P.2d 750]; Frank v. Myers, 16 Cal.App.2d 16 [ 60 P.2d 144]; Candini v. Hiatt, 9 Cal.App.2d 679 [ 50 P.2d 843]; Parsons v. Fuller, 8 Cal.2d 463 [ 66 P.2d 430]; Edwards v. Bodenhamer, 7 Cal.App.2d 305 [ 46 P.2d 202]; Gieselman v. Uhlman, 7 Cal.App.2d 409 [ 45 P.2d 819]; Sanford v. Grady, 1 Cal.App.2d 365 [ 36 P.2d 652, 37 P.2d 475]; Norton v. Puter, 138 Cal.App. 253 [ 32 P.2d 172]; Olson v. Gay, 135 Cal.App. 726 [ 27 P.2d 922]; Walker v. Bacon, 132 Cal.App. 625, 630 [ 23 P.2d 520]), and which led to the conclusion therein that the evidence warranted a finding that wilful misconduct had occurred. In another case the driver's act of turning to adjust the head of his sleeping companion, resulting in the truck colliding with a car coming from the opposite direction, was held not to amount to wilful misconduct, and a judgment for the plaintiff was reversed.
( Goncalves v. Los Banos Mining Co., supra, at p. 918.) Appellants, in contending that such additional factors are present in the instant case, rely upon Bristow v. Brinson (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 168 [ 27 Cal.Rptr. 796], and Frank v. Myers (1936) 16 Cal.App.2d 16 [ 60 P.2d 144]. Both cases are readily distinguishable on their facts.
Courts have sometimes held that law is reason, which we take to mean reason according to the standards of ordinary people in everyday life. Although appellant turned her head to look at the child and disregarded or failed to see the stop sign, there is no evidence that her inattention to her driving was more than momentary or that it was done or continued for any appreciable distance over the warning or protest of respondent as in the case of Frank v. Myers, 16 Cal.App.2d 16 [ 60 P.2d 144], upon which respondent relies. Appellant driver of the car did testify that respondent screamed "Stop" but this was apparently as they were about to be struck, as will be indicated by the following question and appellant's answer: "Q.
(To the same effect: Cockerham v. Potts et al., (Ore.) 20 P.2d 423; Tomlinson v. Kiramidjian et al. (Cal. D.C. App., 4th Dist.), 24 P.2d 559; Meek et al. v. Fowler et al. (Cal. D.C. App., 4th Dist.), 35 P.2d 410; Rees v. Chase et al. (Cal. D.C. App., 2nd Dist.), 38 P.2d 819; Frank v. Myers (Cal. D.C. App., 2nd Dist.), 60 P.2d 144; Collins v. Nelson et al. (Cal. D.C. App., 2nd Dist.), 61 P.2d 479.)