Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Bach v. State, 730 P.2d 854.
- Tourtillot v. Yuma County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Tourtillot v. Yuma County
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
at 233; (“What is reasonable on the one hand and negligent on the other will depend upon the particular facts of the case.
- Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
- Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona 347 P.3d 1141 Ariz. 2015
- Glazer v. State 321 P.3d 470 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Glazer v. State
321 P.3d 470
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
More specifically, the State has a duty to keep its highways reasonably safe for travel.”
- Johnson v. STATE EX REL. DOT 213 P.3d 207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-
Johnson v. STATE EX REL. DOT
213 P.3d 207
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
(“The state has a duty to keep the streets reasonably safe; motorists have a duty to drive with reasonable care.” (internal quotations and brackets omitted)).
- DeVries v. State 211 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-
DeVries v. State
211 P.3d 1185
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
"[T]he State has a duty to keep its highways reasonably safe for travel.” , ( , ).
- Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
- Booth v. State of Arizona Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
- Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
- Goss v. City of Globe 883 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
-
Goss v. City of Globe
883 P.2d 466
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
the duty extends beyond the roadway surface which, in that case, included construction of a nearby exposed culvert.
- Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp. 893 P.2d 26 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
-
Davis v. Cessna Aircraft Corp.
893 P.2d 26
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Nevertheless, , in support of their argument that APS acted negligently.
- Martinez v. State 866 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
- Martinez v. State 866 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
- Home Indemnity Co. v. Mead Reinsurance Corp. 800 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Home Indemnity Co. v. Mead Reinsurance Corp. 800 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
- Udy v. Calvary Corp. 780 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
-
Udy v. Calvary Corp.
780 P.2d 1055
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
To the contrary, , “[ojnce a duty is established, the foreseeability of harm governs the scope of that duty.” 152 Ariz. at 148 , 730 P.2d at 857 .
- Dunham v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1989
- Dunham v. Pima County 778 P.2d 1200 Ariz. 1989
- Lippincott v. State 781 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- Lippincott v. State 781 P.2d 1012 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- Ballesteros v. State 780 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- Ballesteros v. State 780 P.2d 458 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
- Dunham v. Pima County 754 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988