Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company, 537 P.2d 618.

56 citing documents.

Schiager v. Landmark Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Schiager v. Landmark Land Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323 and 324A (1965), a party may assume a duty to act with reasonable care “by undertaking (with or without a formal relationship) to perform services” for another, ¶ 17 (App. 2017), even though the party “otherwise had no duty to do so.” Steinberger, 234 Ariz. at 137, ¶ 46; (explaining a duty arises “by reason of an affirmative undertaking by one who, under the circumstances, has no duty to act”).
Acri v. State 394 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Acri v. State 394 P.3d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
See Stanley, 208 Ariz. at 223-24, ¶ 15
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Smyser v. City of Peoria 160 P.3d 1186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
8 ¶25 , in which the plaintiff suffered losses in a fire and sued a private fire protection company for negligent firefighting.
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Co., , (applying Restatement § 323, a related aspect of voluntary undertakings).
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
Sanchez v. City of Tucson 953 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1998
-37 , -22 (1975); see also W. Page Keeton, et at, Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 56, at 379-82 (5th ed.1984).
Feitler v. LaChance 883 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Feitler v. LaChance 883 P.2d 427 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Bank of America v. J & S Auto Repairs
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 860 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lloyd v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 860 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See, e.g., Thompson v. Sun City Community Hospital, 141 Ariz. at 608 , 688 P.2d at 616 (1984)
Ocotillo West Joint Venture v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Ocotillo West Joint Venture v. Superior Court 844 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Daggett v. County of Maricopa 770 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Daggett v. County of Maricopa 770 P.2d 384 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
See Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Compa *86 ny, , (analyzing the liability of a for-profit corporation to its subscribers under § 323); , (analyzing the liability of a store owner to a customer under § 324A).
Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 746 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 746 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Aztlan Lodge No. 1 v. Ruffner 745 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Aztlan Lodge No. 1 v. Ruffner 745 P.2d 611 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Quinn v. Turner 745 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Quinn v. Turner 745 P.2d 972 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Contempo Const. v. MT. STATES T. & T. CO. 736 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Appellant also contends that appellees had a duty to act carefully once they chose to act at all
Bank of America v. J. & S. AUTO REPAIRS 694 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1985
Bank of America v. J. & S. AUTO REPAIRS 694 P.2d 246 Ariz. 1985
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 705 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 705 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Moran v. Klatzke 682 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Moran v. Klatzke 682 P.2d 1156 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Green Acres Trust v. London 688 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Fendler v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. 636 P.2d 1257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Miller v. Arnal Corp. 632 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Miller v. Arnal Corp. 632 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
The applicability of this statute to a case such as this has not been decided by the Arizona courts, although the language has been described in one case as “notably broad.” , 237 n.1, , 622 n.1 (1975).
Maldonado v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 629 P.2d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Maldonado v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 629 P.2d 1001 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Brumbaugh v. Pet Inc. 628 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Brumbaugh v. Pet Inc. 628 P.2d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
Followed Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
Correa v. Curbey 605 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Correa v. Curbey 605 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
There being no authority to the contrary, we look to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, , to determine first whether the requested instruction is a correct statement of the law as contained in Sections 519 and 520 of the Restatement.
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
While it is axiomatic that the courts of Arizona will follow the application of the Restatement (Second) of Torts in the absence of authority to the contrary, , , it is clear that the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 424 does not apply in the area of the law governing the relationship of an owner of property to an employee of an independent contractor.
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