Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Mason v. Arizona Public Service Co., 622 P.2d 493.

26 citing documents.

GARCIDUENAS v. MATRIX NEW WORLD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Co., ("Generally, in the absence of retained control, the duties owed by a landowner to third persons are not owed to the employees of an independent contractor.").
Troxel v. Timberline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Troxel v. Timberline Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Co., the circumstantial evidence must allow the jury to conclude reasonably that the plaintiff's injury was more likely than not caused by the defendant's conduct, see Ritchie, 221 Ariz. at 298, ¶ 23.
Perez v. Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Perez v. Palace Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., and Citizens Utility are powerline cases, which in some significant respects are analogous here.
Lee v. M & H Enterprises, Inc. 347 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lee v. M & H Enterprises, Inc. 347 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Co., (citing Welker and recognizing that “in the absence of retained control, the duties owed by a landowner to third persons are not 5 The court in Welker analyzed Restatement (First) of Torts § 422 (1934), which for purposes of this case is not materially different from the curre
Vega v. Griffiths Construction, Inc. 833 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Co., , (“The duty to provide a safe place to work generally extends no further than the control retained by the [general contractor].”); Kelley v. Wright Constr.
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 823 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 823 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Parks v. Atkinson, supra.
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Dooley-Jones & Associates, Inc. 746 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Tucson Electric Power Co. v. Dooley-Jones & Associates, Inc. 746 P.2d 510 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Cohen v. Salt River Project 736 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Cohen v. Salt River Project 736 P.2d 809 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Cohen argues that SRP, having knowledge that a construction project had been undertaken, had an obligation to discover whether that construction would come close to its power lines.
Cordova v. Parrett 703 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cordova v. Parrett 703 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Co., , comment c to § 414.
Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. 682 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. 682 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
This court, in the recent, , set out the duty of a distributor of electric power as follows: A distributor of electric power must take precautions commensurate with the dangers involved whenever it is to be reasonably anticipated that persons may come into contact with its lines.