Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co., 737 P.2d 376.

63 citing documents.

MAYWALD v. TOYOTA Ariz. 2026
In support of its conclusion, it cited this Court’s
Emmons v. Teleflex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Emmons v. Teleflex Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Honda Motor Co., (superseded by statute on other grounds).
Gregory v. Kia Motors Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Gregory v. Kia Motors Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Honda Motor Co., vacated in part on other grounds, (“[V]ariations are not uncommon with witnesses, especially expert witnesses, and the usual way to handle such variations is by means of cross-examination.”).
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 365 P.3d 944 Ariz. 2016
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 365 P.3d 944 Ariz. 2016
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Honda Motor Co., , Cutter Aviation, , ).
In re MH 2008-000028 211 P.3d 1261 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Honda Motor Co., , Cutter Aviation, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, , ).
Pipher v. Loo 212 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Pipher v. Loo 212 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 9 Pipher argues that our decision in Go-sewisch v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., , vacated on other grounds, , compelled the exclusion of the testimony.
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
resolves this issue in favor of using a hindsight test.
Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
180 Ariz. at 174 , 883 P.2d at 411 ( , ); see Keeton, et al., supra ¶ 11, § 42, at 273; Douglas A. Blaze & Jefferson L. Lankford, The Law of Negligence in Arizona at § 4.02 (3rd ed.2005).
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Bridgestone Firestone North America Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Honda Motor Co., see also Golonka v. Gen.
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
Honda Motor Co., , (superseded by A.R.S.
Dillon v. Zeneca Corp. 42 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Dillon v. Zeneca Corp. 42 P.3d 598 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Larsen v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. 978 P.2d 119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Jimenez; , Cutter Aviation.
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Wilson v. United States Elevator Corp. 972 P.2d 235 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Dole Food Co. v. North Carolina Foam Industries, Inc. 935 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Dole Food Co. v. North Carolina Foam Industries, Inc. 935 P.2d 876 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
ity, the plaintiff must show “(1) the product is defective and unreasonably dangerous, (2) the defective condition existed at the time the product left the defendant’s control, and (3) the defective condition is the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries.” Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc., , *302 , Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965).
Barnes v. Sandoz Crop Protection Corp. 938 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Barnes v. Sandoz Crop Protection Corp. 938 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Service Merchandise Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 937 P.2d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Service Merchandise Co. v. Arizona Department of Revenue 937 P.2d 336 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
However, "[qjuestions of constitutional guarantees and violations thereof may be raised for the first time on appeal.”
State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Paxton 925 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See, , , , , State v. Babineaux, 22 Ariz.App.
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. 904 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1995
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
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 866 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1994
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 866 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1994
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Piper v. Bear Medical Systems, Inc. 883 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Mental Health Service Action No. MH-1140-6-93. 863 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
In Re the Appeal in Pima County Mental Health Service Action No. MH-1140-6-93. 863 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
See Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., , (constitutional arguments may, but need not be considered if raised for first time on appeal).
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
§ 12-688(3) is a defense because it “focuses on whether the use of the product was reasonably foreseeable.”
Estate of Aten v. City of Tucson 817 P.2d 951 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991