Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc., 709 P.2d 876.

33 citing documents.

MAYWALD v. TOYOTA Ariz. 2026
See Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., n.1 (1985); Byrns, 113 Ariz. at 267 (observing that the “unreasonable danger” concept is particularly “effective as a means of limiting the strict tort liability doctrine ‘in cases in which the issue is the nature of the duty of a manufacturer with respect to safe design, or in situations in which injury does not
Maywald v. Toyota Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Maywald v. Toyota Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
But “while the consumer expectation test may sometimes work well in design defect cases, it provides no resolution for those cases in which the consumer would not know what to expect, because he would have no idea how safe the product could be made.” Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., (internal quotation omitted).
Gregory v. Kia Motors Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gregory v. Kia Motors Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., (assessing whether a design is “defective and unreasonably dangerous” by assessing whether the dangerous or harmful aspects of the design outweigh the benefits of the design).
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
Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., , Golonka v. Gen.
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Powers v. Taser International, Inc. 174 P.3d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
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
¶ 13 A manufacturer is strictly hable for injuries caused by use of any product that was in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous.” Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., , (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts (“Restatement (Second)”) § 402A (1965)).
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd. 3 P.3d 1088 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
-46 , -80 (1985) (risk benefit test); Boy v. I.T.T.
A. UBERTI & C. v. Leonardo in & for PIMA 892 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1995
A. UBERTI & C. v. Leonardo in & for PIMA 892 P.2d 1354 Ariz. 1995
Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc., -48 , -82 (1985) (strict liability analysis applies "defective and unreasonably dangerous” test to product quality and design).
Jimenez v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. 885 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
Jimenez v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. 885 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
“[WJhere the challenged instructions cut to the very heart of the case *434 and misapply the applicable legal theories, the error must be considered prejudicial.” Dart v. Wiebe Mfg., Inc.
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
242, the supreme court discussed the tension between negligence and strict liability theories in design defect cases.
Perez v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 883 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Perez v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. 883 P.2d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
It imposed strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity, applying the “hindsight” test of Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc.
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of America 837 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
During argument on jury instructions, Czamecki contended that the requested instructions be given because they were in RAJI 2B, which was based on Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc., , and because there were no facts in this case “to distinguish it from the case that the RAJI committee had in mind.” He later reurged generally that the instructions be given, but did not argue further the basis for his request.
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Menendez v. Paddock Pool Construction Co. 836 P.2d 968 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
disapproved in part on other grounds
Gomulka v. Yavapai MacHine & Auto Parts, Inc. 745 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gomulka v. Yavapai MacHine & Auto Parts, Inc. 745 P.2d 986 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Our summary is derived from the Arizona Supreme Court’s opinion in Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc.
Abbott v. Meacock 746 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Abbott v. Meacock 746 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
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
A review of the appellee’s motion for reconsideration, appellant’s response thereto, and the supreme court’s decision in Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc., , decided after the original opinion in this case was filed, suggests that we need to further address the issue of jury instructions.
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Dart v. Wiebe Manufacturing, Inc., n. 1 , n. 1 (1985).