Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Smith v. Chapman, 564 P.2d 900.

44 citing documents.

Shepherd v. Costco 441 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Shepherd v. Costco 441 P.3d 989 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“Punitive damages are not permitted in Arizona for mere negligence: there also must be shown a reckless or wanton disregard of the rights of others.”) (citation omitted).
Allen v. Prescott Valley 418 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Allen v. Prescott Valley 418 P.3d 1061 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Safety, -16 (1977) (reversing directed verdict on gross negligence).
Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Jaynes v. McConnell 358 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
see also Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 12
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
Braillard v. Maricopa County, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
There may “be more than one „proximate cause‟ without which the resulting injuries would not have occurred,” and “[t]he defendant‟s act or omission need not be a „large‟ or „abundant‟ cause of the injury; even if defendant‟s conduct contributes „only a little‟ to plaintiff‟s damages, liability exists if the damages would not have occurred but for that conduct,” Robertson v. Sixpence Inns o
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
(explaining that generally the question of proximate cause is for the jury).
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Dickey v. City of Flagstaff 4 P.3d 965 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Newman v. Sun Valley Crushing Co. 844 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Newman v. Sun Valley Crushing Co. 844 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
The question of whether conduct is wilful, wanton or malicious is almost always a jury question unless the evidence is “slight and inconclusive bordering on the realm of conjecture.”
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety 826 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety 826 P.2d 1217 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(court erred in directing verdict on punitive damage issue where there was sufficient evidence from which jury could have found defendant grossly negligent).
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
Orme School v. Reeves 802 P.2d 1000 Ariz. 1990
1957 , 90 L.Ed.2d 365 (1986); -58 , -70 (1985) (whether danger of injury was foreseeable is question of fact for jury); , (whether negligence is proximate cause of injury or damage is generally a question for the jury).
Ball v. Prentice 781 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ball v. Prentice 781 P.2d 628 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Insurance 723 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1986
Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Insurance 723 P.2d 675 Ariz. 1986
Joseph’s Hospital, , (3) Evil intent or bad motive, , , (4) Gross negligence, , 249 P. 751 (1926); , 94 P. 1094 (1908); (5) Wanton, reckless or willful acts, Lutfy v. R.D.
Wilson v. Riley Whittle, Inc. 701 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Wilson v. Riley Whittle, Inc. 701 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Ring v. Taylor 685 P.2d 121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Coupled with the trial court’s instruction on negligence per se, , and Starr v. Campos, supra, appellant contends the effect of the court’s instructions would be to require the jury to find that appellant was negligent as a matter of law if they found that his blood alcohol level was .10 percent or greater.
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Selby v. Savard 655 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1982
Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
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
A directed verdict may only be granted where there is no evidence introduced that “would justify a reasonable person returning a verdict for the opposing party.”
Rubi v. Transamerica Title Insurance 641 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Rubi v. Transamerica Title Insurance 641 P.2d 891 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
505 , and the question of whether such negligence is the proximate cause of an injury is also usually a question for the jury
Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Continental Life & Accident Co. v. Songer 603 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n v. Giglio
Matson v. Naifeh 595 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1979
Matson v. Naifeh 595 P.2d 38 Ariz. 1979
Michael v. Cole 595 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Michael v. Cole 595 P.2d 1006 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978