Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Coburn v. City of Tucson, 691 P.2d 1078.

132 citing documents.

Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
See, , Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass’n, , Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 357 , 706 P.2d at 369 (“The test for whether conduct is negligent is whether there is a foreseeable risk of injury from the conduct.”); , , 172 n. 5, , 1240 n. 5 (App.1996) (“Foreseeability of risk plays a dual role in negligence: it not only defines the standard of care but also determines whether an actor’s conduct was the proximate cause of the injury.”).
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 941 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1997
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 941 P.2d 218 Ariz. 1997
Duty is an issue “of the relation between individuals which imposes upon one a legal obligation for the benefit of the other____” Id ( , ); Prosser & Keeton § 53, at 356.
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Tobel v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 939 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
(hereinafter Church), were not dispositive because the parties disputed whether Tobel followed the rules of the road.
Kesselman v. National Bank of Arizona 937 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Kesselman v. National Bank of Arizona 937 P.2d 341 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Stephens v. Bashas' Inc. 924 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Stephens v. Bashas' Inc. 924 P.2d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Services., Inc. 924 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Services., Inc. 924 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Ariz. 204, 210 , ("Whether or not there is a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains is based on foreseeability.”) with Mar- *467 kowitz, 146 Ariz. at 357 , 706 P.2d at 369 ("The test for whether conduct is negligent is whether there is a foreseeable risk of injury from the conduct.”) , (”[T]he details of conduct necessary to meet those duties will vary from case to case, depending upon the foreseeability of harm if the person under the ob
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Galati v. Lake Havasu City 920 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Hafner v. Beck 916 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Hafner v. Beck 916 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
That ruling was wholly consistent with our supreme court’s recognition that resolution of duty issues involves determinations “of the relation between individuals which impose upon one a legal obligation for the benefit of the other.” , (quoting W. Prosser & W. Keeton, The Law of Torts, § 53 at 356 (5th ed. 1984)).
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation 898 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rudolph v. Arizona B.A.S.S. Federation 898 P.2d 1000 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Rogers, 170 Ariz. at 402-03, 825 P.2d at 23-24.
Southwest Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld 904 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Southwest Auto Painting & Body Repair, Inc. v. Binsfeld 904 P.2d 1268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Goss v. City of Globe 883 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Goss v. City of Globe 883 P.2d 466 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
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
Our supreme court’s , demonstrates how the court functions as a “gatekeeper” to preempt the question of unreasonable risk from going to the jury.
Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc. 880 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Lasley v. Shrake's Country Club Pharmacy, Inc. 880 P.2d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
146 Ariz. at 355 , 706 P.2d at 367 ; -52 , -80 (1984).
Martinez v. State 866 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Martinez v. State 866 P.2d 1356 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Morton v. Maricopa County 865 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Morton v. Maricopa County 865 P.2d 808 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Bellezzo v. State 851 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Bellezzo v. State 851 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 357 , 706 P.2d at 369 ; , (court finds no breach of duty as a matter of law and therefore upholds summary judgment for defendant).
Hydroculture, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand 848 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Hydroculture, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand 848 P.2d 856 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 53, at 356 (5th ed. 1984)).
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Woodty v. Weston's Lamplighter Motels 830 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Woodty v. Weston's Lamplighter Motels 830 P.2d 477 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
-54 , -82 (1984) (holding that as a matter of law the city did not breach its duty to maintain an unobstructed intersection).
Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrum 825 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrum 825 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(quoting W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton *401 on the Law of Torts § 53, at 356 (5th ed. 1984) [hereinafter Prosser and Keeton] (“ ‘[D]uty’ is a question of whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff; and in negligence cases, t
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 53, at 356 (5th ed.1984)
Home Indemnity Co. v. Mead Reinsurance Corp. 800 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Home Indemnity Co. v. Mead Reinsurance Corp. 800 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 796 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1990
Alhambra School District v. Superior Court 796 P.2d 470 Ariz. 1990
Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 355 , 706 P.2d at 367
Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of America, Inc. 789 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1990
Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of America, Inc. 789 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1990
Ontiveros, 136 Ariz. at 508 , 667 P.2d at 208 ; , P. Keeton, supra, § 53, at 356.
Udy v. Calvary Corp. 780 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989