Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain, 486 P.2d 176.

43 citing documents.

Matthew Cavallo v. Phoenix Health Plans Inc Ariz. 2022
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
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp. 880 P.2d 1103 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
In determining whether the instructions given were correct, the test is “whether, upon the whole charge, the jury will gather the proper rules to be applied in arriving at a correct decision.” , see also Timmons, supra.
Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
(trial court properly refused such an instruction because it would “only heighten the confusion of the jury in an already sufficiently confused area”).
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
In determining whether the instructions given were correct, the test is “whether, upon the whole charge, the jury will gather the proper rules to be applied in arriving at a correct decision.”
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Town of Oro Valley v. Superior Court 721 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Town of Oro Valley v. Superior Court 721 P.2d 1175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 705 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
“In Arizona, to successfully maintain an action for the tort of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains, that defendant failed to perform that duty and that such failure proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.”
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rancho Pescado, Inc. v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance 680 P.2d 1235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Jaeger v. Petroni 650 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Jaeger v. Petroni 650 P.2d 476 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
And that the proper test is not whether the injurious results or consequences were possible, but whether they were likely to occur according to the usual experience of persons.” Appellant contends that the instruction is an incorrect statement of the law, , and that it was not supported by the evidence.
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile 640 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1982
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile 640 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1982
“In Arizona, to successfully maintain an action for the tort of negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains, that defendant failed to perform that duty and that such failure proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.”
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
the Arizona Supreme Court held that the duty of a distributor of electric power is established by the foreseeability of harm.
Griffith v. VALLEY OF SUN RECOVERY, ETC. 613 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Griffith v. VALLEY OF SUN RECOVERY, ETC. 613 P.2d 1283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Similarly, , the Arizona Supreme Court stated that: In a case such as this where the establishment of the duty, i.e., foreseeability of harm, varies as a result of factual distinctions, we have held what is or is not negligence or what is foreseeable is a question for the trier of fact.
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
Kauffman v. Schroeder 568 P.2d 411 Ariz. 1977
Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Porterie v. Peters 532 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1975
Porterie v. Peters 532 P.2d 514 Ariz. 1975
Richards v. Simpson 531 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1975
Richards v. Simpson 531 P.2d 538 Ariz. 1975
Lancaster v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 511 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Lancaster v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation 511 P.2d 673 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Anderson Aviation Sales Company, Inc. v. Perez 508 P.2d 87 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973