Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc., 883 P.2d 407.

34 citing documents.

Conklin v. Medtronic 418 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Conklin v. Medtronic 418 P.3d 912 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Murray v. Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona .... 366 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Sys., Inc., (verdict awarding punitive damages but zero compensatory damages rendered it unresponsive), superseded by statute, Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, 1984 Ariz. Sess.
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. 342 P.3d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Inc., –03, –81 (App. 1996) (assessing factors to determine when, under the learned intermediary doctrine, the “manufacturer’s duty to warn is ordinarily satisfied”); Davis, 182 Ariz. at 38, 893 P.2d at 38 (applying the learned intermediary doctrine “[i]n order to determine whether [a manufacturer] satisfied its duty to warn”); Piper v. Bear Medical Sys., Inc., (discussing defendant’s argument that its “duty to warn was satisfied by warning doctors under the learned intermediary doctrine” (intern
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Warne Investments, Ltd. v. Higgins 195 P.3d 645 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Sys., Inc., , 178 n. 3, , 415 n. 3 (App.1993) ("`Learned intermediary doctrine' means the manufacturer's duty to warn is ordinarily satisfied if a proper warning is given to the specialized class of people that may prescribe or administer the product."); , (App.197
Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Sys., Inc., (same); Restatement § 57, cmt.
Health for Life Brands, Inc. v. Powley 57 P.3d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Health for Life Brands, Inc. v. Powley 57 P.3d 726 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Fell 52 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Fell 52 P.3d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
“ ‘What a statute necessarily implies is as much a part of the statute as what the statute specifically expresses.’ ” , see also Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc.
Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army 24 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Saucedo Ex Rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army 24 P.3d 1274 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Sys., Inc., , see also Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Samsel v. Allstate Insurance 19 P.3d 621 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Sys., Inc. , (denial of new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion); Lewis v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ.
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Monaco v. HealthPartners of Southern Arizona 995 P.2d 735 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Shoen v. Shoen 952 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Shoen v. Shoen 952 P.2d 302 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dole Food Co. v. North Carolina Foam Industries, Inc. 935 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dole Food Co. v. North Carolina Foam Industries, Inc. 935 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
To establish a prima facie case of strict liability, the plaintiff must show “(1) the product is defective and unreasonably dangerous, (2) the defective condition existed at the time the product left the defendant’s control, and (3) the defective condition is the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries.” Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc., , *302 , Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965).
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
Plaintiffs correctly assert that “a product faultlessly made may be deemed ‘defective’ if it is unreasonably dangerous to place the product in the hands of a user without a suitable warning.” Piper v. Bear Medical Sys., Inc.