Cited by

¶ 12 (App. 2000); Sanchez, 191 Ariz. at 131, 132–33, ¶¶ 16, 22.

(alteration in original) (quoting Austin, 140 Ariz. at 581-82, 684 P.2d at 153-54); (“A policeman has the duty to be alert to suspicious circumstances and to investigate if necessary, provided that he is acting within constitutional limitations.”); ¶ 14, (finding that although a police officer is generally not responsible for road maintenance per se, when an officer opts to provide police protection he has a duty to act as would reasonably prudent officers in the same circumstances)

(finding police assumed a duty by routinely undertaking to remove or warn of dangerous highway conditions); see, e.g., Stanley, 208 Ariz. at 223-24, ¶¶ 14-16 , 92 P.3d at 853-54 ; , (“A party may voluntarily assume a dut

More specifically, he maintains that, because the superior court was required to treat all factual allegations in the complaint as true, ¶ 5, the court was required to presume he had properly completed the Notice of Disassociation form and was precluded from considering the inconsistencies in the completed form.

We resolve all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the plaintiff, ¶ 5, but 1 Terterova raises several additional theories of liability on appeal.

¶ 30 Likewise, although a law enforcement agency might have some duty to investigate an accident, , even a “ ‘request for ...

We review questions of law de novo and “resolve all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs.” ¶ 5 , Aldabbagh v. Ariz. Dep’t of Liquor Licenses & Control, -18 , -10 (App.1989).