Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rodriguez v. Besser Co., 565 P.2d 1315.

30 citing documents.

Conklin v. Medtronic 418 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Conklin v. Medtronic 418 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
( (App. 1977), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Piper v. Bear Med.
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
(recognizing that a determination as to duty involves a multitude of policy considerations and a finding of no duty means the burden of holding otherwise is too great).
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
He contends, however, that appellee had a continuing duty to inform past customers of the availability of the new safety device once it learned of it, citing Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, Inc., , 2
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
(holding manufacturer had no duty to warn of dangers from product modifications of which the manufacturer had actual knowledge) with Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., , (holding manufacturer of a power saw, that was safe if used with a grounded extensio
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Pankratz v. Willis 744 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
-62 , -23 (App.1977), and cases cited.
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
Raschke v. Carrier Corp. 703 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Raschke v. Carrier Corp. 703 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1070 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
The duty to warn, where applicable, is a continuing one applying to dangers the manufacturer discovers after sale if such dangers existed at the time of sale.” P.2d 1315 (App.1977), wherein the court stated: “The manufacturer of a product must warn of dangers which he knows or should know are inherent in its use.
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Dupree 665 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
First Nat. Bank of Arizona v. Dupree 665 P.2d 1018 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Jacobson v. Colorado Fuel and Iron Corp., 409 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir.1969).
Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc. 639 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1982
Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc. 639 P.2d 330 Ariz. 1982
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
The question of whether a duty exists is one for the court to decide, , the question of whether such a duty has been breached is ordinarily reserved for a jury to determine, Moore v. Maricopa County, 11 Ariz.App.
Tansy v. Morgan 604 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1979
Tansy v. Morgan 604 P.2d 626 Ariz. 1979
We are persuaded that the evidence in the ease did not reasonably support the instruction, , because the defendant was not suddenly or unexpectedly confronted with imminent peril.
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
Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company, 24 Ariz.App.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by