Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated, 550 P.2d 1065.

80 citing documents.

MAYWALD v. TOYOTA Ariz. 2026
Maywald v. Toyota Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Maywald v. Toyota Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
1978)), with Dart, 147 Ariz. at 245 (approving risk/benefit analysis as expressed in Barker as an alternative strict products liability test and noting Barker’s “analysis is a logical refinement of [the Arizona Supreme Court’s] previous reasoning in [].”).
Brethauer v. General Motors Corp. 211 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Brethauer v. General Motors Corp. 211 P.3d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
7 See Dart, 147 Ariz. at 245-46 , 709 P.2d at 879 -80 (citing Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , ) (stating as relevant factor to consider in risk/benefit analysis “[the] common knowledge and normal public expectation of the danger (particularly for established products)”).
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Golonka v. General Motors Corp. 65 P.3d 956 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
public expectation of the danger (particularly for established products), (6) the avoidability of injury by care in use of the product (including the effect of instructions or warnings), and (7) the ability to eliminate the danger without seriously impairing the usefulness of the product or making it unduly expensive.” Dart, 147 Ariz. at 245-46 , 709 P.2d at 879 -80 (citing Byms v. Riddell, Inc., , (citation omitted)).
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 868 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co. 868 P.2d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
we quoted with approval “[t]he following test of “unreasonable danger”: “whether a reasonable manufacturer would continue to market his product in the same condition as he sold it to the plaintiff with knowledge of the potential dangerous consequences the trial has just revealed.’ ” This “hindsi
Bellezzo v. State 851 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Dunham v. Pima County 754 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Dunham v. Pima County 754 P.2d 761 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Hellebrandt v. Kelley Co., Inc. 737 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Hellebrandt v. Kelley Co., Inc. 737 P.2d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Over objection, the trial court instructed the jury: “The Dyna-Load dock leveler is not defective and unreasonably dangerous if you find that the defect was known or obvious to the ultimate user.” , , and is, therefore, reversible error.
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1987
Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 735 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc. 735 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , , 1069 *146 (1976).
Boy v. I.T.T. Grinnell Corp. 724 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Boy v. I.T.T. Grinnell Corp. 724 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
The factors which bear upon this determination in a defective design case were considered by us in Byrns v. Riddell, Inc.
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Id., comment i; Byrns v. Riddell, Inc.
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc. 709 P.2d 876 Ariz. 1985
In Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , we stated that the concept of “unreasonable danger” was ...
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
t, which similarly used the word “unsafe”: “A party who manufactures or sells a defective product is liable if the defect causes an injury and if the defect causes the product to be unsafe for a reasonably foreseeable use.” (Emphasis added) Instruction No. 1 is identical to Recommended Arizona Jury Instructions, Products Liability 1 (1974) which was held to be erroneous in Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , stating that the requirement for liability was not that the product be “unsafe” but that it be “un
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1985
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1985
The factors which bear upon this determination in a defective design case were considered by us in Byrns v. Riddell, Inc.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 694 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1984
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 694 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1984
Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , O.S.
Dietz v. Waller 685 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1984
Dietz v. Waller 685 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1984
“A directed verdict admits the truth of all the evidence of the party opposing the motion including all reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence.” -292 , -854 (1982) (strict liability), citing Byrns v. Riddell, Inc.
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Jones v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co. 700 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
See Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Gibson v. Boyle 679 P.2d 535 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Rocky Mountain, supra ; Matson v. Naifeh, supra ; Byrns v. Riddell, Inc.
Turner v. MacHine Ice Co. 674 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Turner v. MacHine Ice Co. 674 P.2d 883 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
The main thrust of Turner’s argument on appeal is based on this reasoning: That the Supreme Court’s decision in Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , , rejects, as the only factor to be considered, the distinction between latent and patent defects for the purpose of imposing strict tort liability; that since the trial court allegedly relied upon this distinction as the sole basis for granting the directed verdict, its decision must be reverse
Nelson v. Nelson 669 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Nelson v. Nelson 669 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , .
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 667 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 667 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jordan v. Sunnyslope Appliance Propane & Plumbing Supplies Co. 660 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jordan v. Sunnyslope Appliance Propane & Plumbing Supplies Co. 660 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Weber v. Roosevelt Water Conservation Dist., Maricopa County, , Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , Whitly v. Moore, 5 Ariz.App.
Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc. 324 N.W.2d 207 Minn. 1982
Rhodes v. International Harvester Co. 641 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Rhodes v. International Harvester Co. 641 P.2d 906 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
The test is the restatement definition found in Byrns v. Riddell, Inc., , : *420 “The article sold must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.” In reviewing the record where a directed verdict has been granted