Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., 409 P.2d 57.

39 citing documents.

Proctor v. Pvusd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Proctor v. Pvusd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Co., -3 (App. 1991); Yuma Furniture, 8 Ariz. App. at 578; Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., but see Burke v. Ariz. Biltmore Hotel, Inc., -72 (1970).
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
See Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., , (“the bare fact that a condition is ‘open and obvious’ does not necessarily mean that it is not unreasonably dangerous.” ( , )).
Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership 968 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Sheppard v. Crow-Barker-Paul No. 1 Ltd. Partnership 968 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
at 310 , 921 P.2d at 713 ; see also Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., -44 , -60 (1965).
Bellezzo v. State 851 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
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
(where plaintiff was injured when she drove into a stationary freight train blocking the street, with warning lights and bells operating, question of railroad’s negligence was for jury); Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., , (recessed walkway in bowling alley might have been obvious to a person walking normally, but likely to be forgotten by a contestant in the excitement of a game).
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 706 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1985
Id, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 343A comment f; , , (1965).
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 705 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Johnson v. Tucson Estates, Inc. 683 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Johnson v. Tucson Estates, Inc. 683 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
The Court of Appeals, Division One, in Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., P.2d 57 (1965) and our court in Brierley v. Anaconda Company, 21 Ariz.App.
Smedberg v. Simons 631 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1981
Smedberg v. Simons 631 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1981
573 , Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., P.2d 57 (1965).
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
“Of course, the bare fact that a condition is ‘open and obvious’ does not necessarily mean that it is not unreasonably dangerous.” (Emphasis supplied) , Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc.
Jackson v. Cartwright School District 607 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Jackson v. Cartwright School District 607 P.2d 975 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
In Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., , the court held that a “drop off” was quite likely to be forgotten in the pressure of the bowling game and, in fact, the plaintiff did forget about the drop off at the time of the incident.
Hicks v. Superstition Mountain Post No. 9399 601 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Hicks v. Superstition Mountain Post No. 9399 601 P.2d 294 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
See also Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., P.2d 57 (1965) and Yuma Furniture Co. v. Rehwinkel, 8 Ariz.App.
Pruett v. Precision Plumbing, Inc. 554 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Pruett v. Precision Plumbing, Inc. 554 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., P.2d 57 (1965).
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
In the alternative, did the court err in giving instruction No. 2 , requested by the appellant?
Brierley v. Anaconda Co. 515 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Brierley v. Anaconda Co. 515 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
A recent case in this jurisdiction dealing with an occupier’s liability for obvious dangers is Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., , decided by Division One of this court.
St. Gregory's Church v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
St. Gregory's Church v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., , ; and Yuma Furniture Co. v. Rehwinkel, 8 Ariz.App.
Burke v. Arizona Biltmore Hotel, Inc. 467 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Burke v. Arizona Biltmore Hotel, Inc. 467 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward, supra; Cummings v. Pratu, supra; see Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc.
Yuma Furniture Company v. Rehwinkel 448 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Yuma Furniture Company v. Rehwinkel 448 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
We believe the conditions here were altogether different from those in Daugherty, and more like those in Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc.
Wiseman v. Young 422 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Wiseman v. Young 422 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc.
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 422 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 422 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
In the recent case of Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., , this Court held that there was a jury question in relation to the defendant’s liability for the plaintiff’s injury even though the danger was obvious and well known to both the plaintiff and the defendant.