Cited by

A “court may derive a standard of care from a statute ‘if it first determines that the statute’s purpose is in part to protect a class of persons that includes the plaintiff and the specific interest at issue from the type of harm that occurred and against the particular action that caused the harm.’” Martin, 209 Ariz. at 536, ¶ 23 ().

¶ 18 (App. 2016) (“The standard of care may be ‘established by a legislative enactment.’” ()); see Restatement § 285.

¶14 Negligent conduct “falls below the standard established by law” to protect “others against unreasonable risk of harm.”

¶18 The standard of care may be “established by a legislative enactment” or “adopted by the court from a legislative enactment.” (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 285, at 20 (1965)).

at 253, ¶ 23, 293 P.3d at 529 ( ).

(rejecting negligence per se claim based on statute prohibiting rental car company from leasing to unlicensed drivers because “statutes intended for the protection of the public at large rather than an individual or class of persons do not create the standard of conduct required o

Further, a reasonably foreseeable event is one that “might reasonably be expected to occur now and then, and would be recognized as not highly unlikely if it did suggest itself to the actor’s mind.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A reasonably foreseeable event is one that might ‘reasonably be expected to occur now and then, and would be recognized as not highly unlikely if it did suggest itself to the actor’s mind.’” , (citation omitted).

However, the rule is not jurisdictional, and this court has discretion to consider a new argument on appeal when the issue is one of statewide importance, Winsor v. Glasswerks PHX, L.L.C., n. 3, ¶ 20 , n. 3 (App.2003), or if adoption of a legal principle “will expedite enforcement of a right or redress an injustice.” n. 3 , n. 3 (App.1996).

at 243, ¶ 34 , 129 P.3d at 965 ( , ).

3 “The ‘definition of a reasonably foreseeable event is an event that might reasonably be expected to occur now and then, and would be recognized as not highly unlikely if it did suggest itself to the actor’s mind.’” , (quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 44, at 307 (5th ed.1984)).

We 7 (tort of negligent entrustment not restricted “to cases in which the owner entrusts a vehicle to one known to be incompetent or inexperienced,” but also applies when “‘the peculiar circumstances of the case are such as to give the actor good reason to believe that the third person

The court may derive a standard of care from a statute “if it first determines that the statute’s purpose is in part to protect a class of persons that includes the plaintiff and the specific interest at issue from the type of harm that occurred and against the particular action that caused the harm.” , see also Estate of Hernandez v. Ariz. Bd.

of Supervisors of Pima Co., , , 171 n. 3, , 1239 n. 3 (App.1996).

A reasonably foreseeable event is one that might “reasonably be expected to occur now and then, and would be recognized as not highly unlikely if it did suggest itself to the actor’s mind.” , see Fazzolari v. Portland School District No. 1J, 78 Or.App.

Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass’n, , Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 357 , 706 P.2d at 369 (“The test for whether conduct is negligent is whether there is a foreseeable risk of injury from the conduct.”); , , 172 n. 5, , 1240 n. 5 (App.1996) (“Foreseeability of risk plays a dual role in negligence: it not only defines the standard of care but also determines whether an actor’s conduct was the proximate cause of the injury.”).

In addition, to be a proximate cause of the accident, FCCI’s conduct “need have contributed only slightly to the injury.” , , (App.1996)