DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Ontiveros v. Borak, 667 P.2d 200.

328 citing documents.

  • US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp. 361 P.3d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Hague v. Bill Houston Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Ritchie v. Costello 356 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Ritchie v. Costello 356 P.3d 337 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Duty is an “‘obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks.’” (quoting W. Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971)).
  • Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 354 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Sullivan v. Pulte Home Corp. 354 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Superi- or Court, -43 , , 47A-75 (1990) (school district assumed duty of care to persons using crosswalk it established and could be hable for personal injury caused by deviation from statutory requirements); -11 , -11 (1983) (dram shop statutes as basis for tavern owner’s duty to pedestrian injured by drunk driver served in violation of statute); Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Servs., Inc., , V 21, (duty of care based on statutes imposing obligations on enti
  • April Abigail Guerra v. State of Arizona 348 P.3d 423 Ariz. 2015
  • April Abigail Guerra v. State of Arizona 348 P.3d 423 Ariz. 2015
    ¶ 7 Under Arizona’s common law of negligence, “duty” is “an expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection.” , (quoting William L. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts § 42, at 325-26 (4th ed.1971)); , (describing “duty” as “the relation between individuals which imposes upon one a legal obligation for the benefi
  • Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc., ¶ 10, see also Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 355, 706 P.2d at 367 (owner or possessor of land/invitee); (tavern owner/patron), superseded by statute, A.R.S.
  • Rees v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Rees v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
  • Guerra v. State 323 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • Guerra v. State 323 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    no-duty rule, it generally does so based on concerns that potential liability would chill socially desirable conduct or otherwise have adverse effects.”); Stanley, 208 Ariz. at 225, ¶ 20 , 92 P.3d at 855 (considering whether the imposition of a duty on a physician to a non-patient would “ ‘chill’ doctors from doing pre-employment exams and open the floodgates of litigation”); , (stating that in some situations “the public interest ...
  • Gilbert Tuscany Lender, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank 307 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • Gilbert Tuscany Lender, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank 307 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    An original actor may be relieved from liability for “the final result when, and only when, an intervening act of another was unforeseeable by a reasonable person in the position of the original actor and when, looking backward, after the event, the intervening act appears extraordinary.”
  • Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    (“‘every person is under a duty to avoid creating situations which pose an unreasonable risk of harm to others’”)
  • Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co. 275 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co. 275 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    (citing William L. Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts, § 30 at 143 (4th ed. 1971)).
  • Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 271 P.3d 1104 Ariz. 2012
  • Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 271 P.3d 1104 Ariz. 2012
    B. ¶17 In general, “every person is under a duty to avoid creating situations which pose an unreasonable risk of harm to others.” (emphasis added) ().
  • Wickham v. Hopkins 250 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
  • Wickham v. Hopkins 250 P.3d 245 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
    Duty is an “obligation, recognized by law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks.” , (quoting W. Prosser, Handbook on the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971)).
  • Diaz v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC. 230 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • Diaz v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC. 230 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    Duty is an “obligation, recognized by law, requiring the [defendant] to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risks.” , (quoting W. Proffer, Handbook on the Law of Torts § 30, at 143 (4th ed. 1971)).
  • M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 216 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • M.D.C. Holdings, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Arizona Department of Revenue 216 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    superseded on other grounds by A.R.S.
  • Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    ng act of another was unforeseeable by a reasonable person in the position of the original actor and when, looking backward, after the event, the intervening act appears extraordinary.” ¶ 31 , (hereinafter, “Gipson I”) (vacated in part by Gipson II, 214 Ariz. at 147, ¶ 32 , 150 P.3d at 234 , as to duty) ( , ).
  • Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez 202 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Penn-America Insurance v. Sanchez 202 P.3d 472 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    See Ontiveros r. Borak, , ("[N]egligence requires proof of a duty owed lo the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, an injury proximately caused by lhat breach, and damage.”); , 100 ¶ 20, -95 (App.2008) ("Damage or injury is necessary to complete the tort.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    a second actor.” Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 506
  • Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
  • Tilley v. Delci 204 P.3d 1082 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
    (plaintiff may maintain negligence action if he proves duty, breach of duty, proximate causation, and actual damage).
  • Vasquez v. State 206 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • Vasquez v. State 206 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    quoting Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at *313 356 , 706 P.2d at 368 ; ¶¶ 10, 12 , 853 (2004); , Wer-theim, , 122 P.3d at 3 ; Bloxham, , 53 P.3d at 199 .
  • Mein Ex Rel. Mein v. Cook 193 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • Mein Ex Rel. Mein v. Cook 193 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    (“[Njegligenee requires proof of a duty owed to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, an injury proximately caused by that breach, and damage.”); Home v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Sys., 897 So.2d 972, 977 (Miss.2004) (“an injury is necessary to complete a tort”); Reed v. Cloninger