Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Pruitt v. Pavelin, 685 P.2d 1347.

30 citing documents.

Durable Investments LLC v. Steve Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Durable Investments LLC v. Steve Villarreal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2026
Challenge v. Wholesale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Challenge v. Wholesale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Challenge counters that Section 8 is a provision for the sole benefit of Challenge and therefore it could choose not to enforce the provision.
Roaf v. Rebuck Consulting Ariz. 2024
Roaf v. Rebuck Consulting Ariz. 2024
at 197 (–02 (App. 1984), the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 307, and the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 (providing that liability results because the employer has reason to believe that putting his employee in such a position will create an unreasonable risk of harm to others)).
Berkman v. Walt Danley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Berkman v. Walt Danley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
jtsg/zurich v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
jtsg/zurich v. Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Mfc v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mfc v. Gray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Arellano v. Primerica Life Insurance 332 P.3d 597 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Young v. Beck 231 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Young v. Beck 231 P.3d 940 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Cf. Jacobson, 154 Ariz. at 432 , 743 P.2d at 412 (comparing master-servant relationship with parent-child relationship); , (“[A]n employer is vicariously liable only for the behavior of an employee who was acting within the course and scope of his employment.”).
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Catherine E. Warner v. Southwest Desert Images, LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
for the behavior of an employee who was acting within the course and scope of his employment.’”), see generally Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 7.03, 7.07 (2006).
Maria Henning v. Montecini Hospitality Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Maria Henning v. Montecini Hospitality Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
9 352 (App. 2004); -03, -55 (App. 1984); Kassman v. Busfield Enters., Inc., 167, 357 (App. 1981).7 ¶17 -82, -82 (App. 1980), the Hennings correctly note that we have previously re
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Smith v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. 876 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
According to the doctrine of respondeat superior, “an employer is vicariously liable only for the behavior of an employee who was acting within the course and scope of his employment.” , Scottsdale Jaycees v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 17 Ariz.App.
Adams Realty Corp. v. Realty Center Investments, Inc. 719 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Adams Realty Corp. v. Realty Center Investments, Inc. 719 P.2d 291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Equity General Insurance v. C & a Realty Co. 715 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Equity General Insurance v. C & a Realty Co. 715 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Manning v. Blackwelder 706 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Manning v. Blackwelder 706 P.2d 737 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
(“a party may waive any provision of a contract intended for his sole benefit”).
Quinonez on Behalf of Quinonez v. Andersen 696 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Quinonez on Behalf of Quinonez v. Andersen 696 P.2d 1342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
We recently had occasion to discuss Lewis in the context of “negligent hiring” , and concluded that the position taken by Restatement (Second) of Torts, is now the law in Arizona.