Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska, 495 P.2d 1327.

33 citing documents.

Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Haven v. Taylor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“[A] plaintiff [can] recover for any aggravation of a preexisting condition caused by a negligent defendant.”); cf. W. Bonded Prods.
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
lains is based on foreseeability.”); Riddle v. Ariz. Oncology Servs., Inc., , (“As plaintiff correctly notes, foreseeability of harm appears to be an element of duty under Arizona case law.”); Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc., , (“One element of duty is foreseeability.”); -27 , -34 (1972) (explaining that foreseeability is a factor in determining duty).
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Dist., , , ("[I]n the first instance foreseeability is always a question of law for the court.”).
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 868 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Canon School District No. 50 v. W.E.S. Construction Co. 868 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Potts v. Litt 828 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Potts v. Litt 828 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
The Litts agreed with Disney’s
Dolezal v. Carbrey 778 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Dolezal v. Carbrey 778 P.2d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
we said: We analyze the cases as saying that in the first instance foreseeability is always a question of law for the court.
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Mammo v. State 675 P.2d 1347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
See City of Scottsdal0e v. Kokaska
Davis v. Mangelsdorf 673 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Davis v. Mangelsdorf 673 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
this court discussed foreseeability as an element of the duty issue stating: We analyze the cases as saying that in the first instance foreseeability is always a question of law for the court.
Schnyder v. Empire Metals, Inc. 666 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Schnyder v. Empire Metals, Inc. 666 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Paul v. Holcomb, supra; Annot., 100 A.L.R.2d 942 , 966 (1965).
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance 647 P.2d 1127 Ariz. 1982
Griffith v. VALLEY OF SUN RECOVERY, ETC. 613 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Griffith v. VALLEY OF SUN RECOVERY, ETC. 613 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District 595 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District 595 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
495 P,2d 1327 (1972): The first element [of actionable negligence] is the duty issue; the second is the negligence issue; the third element is the causal relation or proximate cause issue; *477 while the fourth element is the damage issue.
Lake Havasu Irrigation & Drainage District v. Dubois 573 P.2d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
McGeorge v. City of Phoenix 572 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
McGeorge v. City of Phoenix 572 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
A case relied upon by appellants, , illustrates this.
Bennett v. Estate of Baker 557 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Bennett v. Estate of Baker 557 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Herderick v. State 530 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Herderick v. State 530 P.2d 1144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975