Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrum, 825 P.2d 20.

58 citing documents.

Villalobos v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Villalobos v. Maricopa County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial”); (“A jury will not be permitted to require a party to take a precaution that is clearly unreasonable.”) (citation omitted).
Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
(describing two causation elements as cause-in-fact and foreseeability or proximate cause).
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Hersum Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(“inherent in the risk of vehicular injury is the prospect of an intervener’s negligent or reckless driving of a car”); ¶¶ 6, 8, (in trial for endangerment from drunk driving, evidence victim was speeding did not war
Grafitti-Valenzuela v. City of Phoenix 167 P.3d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Grafitti-Valenzuela v. City of Phoenix 167 P.3d 711 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
owever, we may rule as a matter of law when “no reasonable juror could conclude that the standard of care was breached or that the damages were proximately caused by the defendant’s conduct.” Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143 n. 1, ¶ 9, 150 P.3d at 230 n. 1; see also Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 357-58 , 706 P.2d at 369-70 ; Coburn, 143 Ariz. at 53 , 691 P.2d at 1081 ; , (noting that, “in approaching the question of negligence or unreasonable risk, ‘the courts set outer limits.
Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc. 153 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc. 153 P.3d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
at 143 n. 1, ¶ 9, , 150 P.3d at 230 n. 1 (citing Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 357-58 , 706 P.2d at 369-70 ; , ); , 402-03 n. 4, , 23-24 n. 4 (App.1991) (noting that, “in approaching the question of negligence or unreasonable risk, ‘the courts set outer limits.
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Explained Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
when analyzing the legal cause of an injury, “we must take a broad view of the class of risks and victims that are foreseeable, and the particular manner in which the injury is brought about need not be foreseeable.” Id.
Hutto v. Francisco 107 P.3d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Hutto v. Francisco 107 P.3d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
*92 ¶ 18 While “[n]ot every foreseeable risk is an unreasonable risk,” deciding whether a risk was unreasonable “requires an evaluative judgment ordinarily left to the jury.” -03 , -24 (App.1991).
Clark v. New Magma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Clark v. New Magma Irrigation & Drainage District 92 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Clark v. New Magma Irrigation & Drainage District 92 P.3d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
And in performance of that regulatory duty, the District had the common law duty “to act reasonably in the light of foreseeable and unreasonable risks.” Sabina, , 993 P.2d at 1134
Clark v. New Magma Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
And in performance of that regulatory duty, the District had the common law duty “to act reasonably in the light of foreseeable and unreasonable risks.” Sabina, 993 P.2d at 1134
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, No. 214 54 P.3d 828 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Tollenaar v. Chino Valley Sch.
Hislop v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 5 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Hislop v. SALT RIVER PROJECT AGR. IMP. 5 P.3d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(acknowledging policy considerations affecting determination as a matter of law that there was no negligence on the part of a school district in not having a closed campus).
Sabina v. Yavapai County Flood Control District 993 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Sabina v. Yavapai County Flood Control District 993 P.2d 1130 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
And in performance of that regulatory duty, the District had the common law duty “to act reasonably in the light of foreseeable and unreasonable risks.”
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tollenaar v. Chino Valley School District 945 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tollenaar v. Chino Valley School District 945 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
This case, , arises from a vehicular accident involving high school students driving off campus during the school day.
Napier v. Bertram 937 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Napier v. Bertram 937 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Estes v. Tripson 932 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Estes v. Tripson 932 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
We may assume for the purpose of disposition that Tripson owed Estes the common duty “to act reasonably in the light of foreseeable and unreasonable risks.”
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Tellez v. Saban 933 P.2d 1233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Stephens v. Bashas' Inc. 924 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Stephens v. Bashas' Inc. 924 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 920 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Schabel v. DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL 920 P.2d 41 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 928 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 928 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(“A public school district in Arizona is liable for negligence when it fails to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances.”).
Bell v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 900 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Bell v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 900 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Southwest Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld 904 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Southwest Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld 904 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Delbridge v. Maricopa County Community College District 893 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Delbridge v. Maricopa County Community College District 893 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
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
But “[n]ot every foreseeable risk is an unreasonable risk.”