Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Brady v. Melody Homes Manufacturer, 589 P.2d 896.

26 citing documents.

Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
disapproved in part on other grounds
Gomulka v. Yavapai MacHine & Auto Parts, Inc. 745 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gomulka v. Yavapai MacHine & Auto Parts, Inc. 745 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Second, we assume that Gomulka originally sought to proceed on a strict liability theory under the consumer expectation test because, otherwise, , a decision which Dart later overruled.
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Trus Joist Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America 735 P.2d 125 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement &amp
Boy v. I.T.T. Grinnell Corp. 724 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Boy v. I.T.T. Grinnell Corp. 724 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
this court considered the question of when a risk/benefit analysis, as opposed to the consumer expectation approach, should apply in a design defect case.
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
In affirming the judgment, the court of appeals correctly noted that the “adequacy and propriety of [the] instructions [given] , ” (Slip op.
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 517 Ariz. 1985
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
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
there are two types of design defects.
Turner v. MacHine Ice Co. 674 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Turner v. MacHine Ice Co. 674 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jordan v. Sunnyslope Appliance Propane & Plumbing Supplies Co. 660 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jordan v. Sunnyslope Appliance Propane & Plumbing Supplies Co. 660 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
We do not imply that we “have moved out of the area of tort law and into a compensation system based upon injury.”
Hohlenkamp v. Rheem Manufacturing Co. 655 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Hohlenkamp v. Rheem Manufacturing Co. 655 P.2d 32 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
The term “unreasonably dangerous” means “dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” , and see
Moorer v. Clayton Manufacturing Corp. 627 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Moorer v. Clayton Manufacturing Corp. 627 P.2d 716 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
(2) misinstructing the jury; (3) allowing appellee’s expert witness to testify; (4) refusing to grant a new trial when the verdict was based on passion and prejudice; (5) refusing to grant a remittitur, and (6) refusing to grant a new trial because of jury misconduct.
Chavarria v. Ford Motor Company 602 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Chavarria v. Ford Motor Company 602 P.2d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by