Cited by

4 MCCARTHY, et al. v. KUMMERLE, et al. Decision of the Court ¶14 The McCarthys’s reliance on Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc., is misplaced.

Indeed, we cited Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc., –31 (App. 1996), which concluded that a grocer had a duty to use reasonable care in maintaining ingress into its delivery dock to avoid causing injury to a delivering truck driver who attempted to enter the dock but was required by the dock’s configuration, and told by a security guard, to park on a public street

“This duty includes an obligation ‘to provide reasonably safe means of ingress and egress.’” Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc., (quoting O’).

See McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., ¶ 23 (App. 2013); Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc.

“The existence of a duty of care is a distinct issue from whether the standard of care has been met in a particular case.” Id.; (noting the existence of a duty must not “be confused with details of the standard of conduct” required to satisfy the duty); see also Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc., (explaining that the existence of a duty must be determined “on the basis of the parties’ relationship, not on the details of their conduct”).

See Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc.

See Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc.

See Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc., –31 (App. 1996) (concluding that a grocer owed a duty to an invitee-driver injured while opening delivery truck doors on adjacent public street because businesses have a duty to provide a reasonably safe means of ingress and egress for invitees and the grocer knew drivers used that area for parking and opening doo

at 571 ¶ 12; ¶ 18 (App. 2011) (stating that a landowner’s duty to business invitees includes the duty to provide safe ingress and egress from its premises); Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc., –31 (App. 1996) (same).

at 10–13; see also Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc., –31 (App. 1996) (holding that duty was based on landowner-invitee relationship, and the fact plaintiff was injured outside defendant’s premises was relevant to breach/standard of care, not duty).

at 143, 639 P.2d at 333; Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc.

But see Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc., (suggesting business may have duty to invitees for ingress and egress extending beyond its own property).

¶ 18 Contending the Hopkinses owed a duty to provide him a reasonably safe means of ingress and egress to and from the premises, Wickham cites several cases including Nicoletti, , , Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc., , and O’Rielly Motor Co. v. Rich, 3 Ariz.App.

¶ 15 “To establish fault, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiffs injury.” Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc.

Stephens v. Bashas’ Inc.