Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Purcell v. Zimbelman, 500 P.2d 335.

54 citing documents.

NOVALIS-MARINE v. MONASH Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
2 in addressing this evidentiary issue.
Ott v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ott v. Banner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
See Robertson, 163 Ariz. at 546 (1990) (“Only when plaintiff’s evidence does not establish a causal connection, leaving causation to the jury’s speculation, or where reasonable persons could not differ on the inference derived from the evidence, may the court properly enter a directed verdict.”); –83 (1972) (recognizing that because no one “can say with absolute certainty what would have occurred if the defendant had acted otherwise,” the question of causation is “peculiarly for the jury”) (cita
Santos v. Trolley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Santos v. Trolley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 12 (App. 2004); (causation requires “probable facts from which .
10k LLC v. Wvsv Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
10k LLC v. Wvsv Holdings Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
(citing Prosser, Law of Torts § 41, at 242 (4th ed. 1971)).
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
McMullan v. Chw Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Rasor v. Northwest Hospital, LLC Dba Northwest Medical Center 373 P.3d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Rasor v. Northwest Hospital, LLC Dba Northwest Medical Center 373 P.3d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶33 NWMC next argues the medical records were not relevant and the trial court’s P.2d 335 (1972) was “misplaced” because “knowledge of a danger was not an issue in the case.” In its ruling ordering NWMC to produce the medical records, the trial court quoted Purcell, stating: In a negligence case, where knowledge of a danger is an issue, “evidence of the oc
Clemens v. Dmb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Clemens v. Dmb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rees v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Rees v. Hospital Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Because “no man can say with absolute certainty what would have occurred if the defendant had acted otherwise,” the question of causation is “peculiarly for the jury.” –83, –43 (1972) (quoting Prosser, Law of Torts § 41, at 242 (4th ed. 1971)).
Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Services, Inc. 258 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Services, Inc. 258 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
(hospital could be liable for independent contractor doctor’s negligence because “hospital had assumed the duty of supervising the competence of its staff doctors”).
Pompeneo v. Verde Valley Guidance Clinic 249 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Pompeneo v. Verde Valley Guidance Clinic 249 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Robertson v. Sixpence Inns of Am., Inc., , ( , ).
Gasiorowski v. Hose 897 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gasiorowski v. Hose 897 P.2d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
(other acts showing a misconception of the proper medical treatment are admissible in a medical malpractice case as tending to show similar misconception on the occasion in question).
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
Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
James v. Phoenix General Hospital, Inc. 744 P.2d 689 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
because it “knew or should have known that the Defendant Robert Ostwinkle was not competent to conduct the surgical case of Maurice James.” All defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred under the three-year statute of limitation imposed by A.R.S.
Herzog v. Boykin 713 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc. 684 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc. 684 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. 652 P.2d 507 Ariz. 1982
Ziegler v. Super. Ct. in and for Cty. of Pima 656 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Ziegler v. Super. Ct. in and for Cty. of Pima 656 P.2d 1251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Tucson Medical Center, Inc. v. Misevch, supra
Fridena v. Evans 622 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1980
Fridena v. Evans 622 P.2d 463 Ariz. 1980
Among the cases indicative of the “emerging trend”
Wisener v. State 598 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1979
Wisener v. State 598 P.2d 511 Ariz. 1979
Scappatura v. Baptist Hospital of Phoenix 584 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Scappatura v. Baptist Hospital of Phoenix 584 P.2d 1195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Shaner v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 573 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Shaner v. Tucson Airport Authority, Inc. 573 P.2d 518 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
: “An essential element of the plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence is that there must be some reasonable connection between the act or omission of the defendant and the damage which the plaintiff has suffered.
Peterson v. Tucson General Hospital, Inc. 559 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
Peterson v. Tucson General Hospital, Inc. 559 P.2d 186 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1976
For the potential liability of a hospital see Tucson Medical Center, , , Beeck v. Tucson General Hospital, 18 Ariz.App.
Tucson Medical Center, Incorporated v. Misevch 545 P.2d 958 Ariz. 1976
Tucson Medical Center, Incorporated v. Misevch 545 P.2d 958 Ariz. 1976
review denied; see R 9-10-213, Official Compilation, Administrative Rules & Regulations, Department of Health Services.
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 535 P.2d 599 Ariz. 1975
Rule 51(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, 16 A.R.S., reads in its pertinent part: “No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.” , the court commented on Rule 51(a) to this effect: “The purpose of Rule 51(a), supra, is to apprise both the trial court and the party offering the instruction of the exact nature of
Costanzo v. Stewart Title & Trust of Phoenix 533 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Costanzo v. Stewart Title & Trust of Phoenix 533 P.2d 73 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975