Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Welker v. Kennecott Copper Company, 403 P.2d 330.

55 citing documents.

GARCIDUENAS v. MATRIX NEW WORLD Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Vanoss v. BHP Copper Inc. 418 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
Welker v. Kennecott Copper Co. , , 404, rejected in part on other grounds by Lewis v. N.J.
Gonzalez v. Mat Const Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Gonzalez v. Mat Const Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
er’s Duty as Landowner ¶15 Generally, a landowner owes no duty to the employee of an independent contractor when the landowner “has turned over safe premises to the independent contractor without hidden and/or concealed defects and has not retained control of the premises where the work is being performed, either directly or through other independent contractors.” -05 (App. 1965); see also E.L.
Lee v. M & H Enterprises, Inc. 347 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Lee v. M & H Enterprises, Inc. 347 P.3d 1153 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
-04, -39 (1965) (citing Restatement (First) of Torts § 409 (1934) (“Except as stated in §§ 410 to 429, the employer of an independent contractor is not subject to liability for bodily harm caused to another by a tortious act or omission of the contractor or his servants.“)); see also E.L.
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
Lewis v. N.J. Riebe Enterprises, Inc. 825 P.2d 5 Ariz. 1992
See Matsumato v. Arizona Sand & Rock Co., , (applying § 414 to third persons); Manhattan-Dickman, 113 Ariz. at 553 , 558 P.2d at 898 (applying § 414 to independent contractors); , (holding that protection provided by § 414 applies to employees of independent contractor).
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
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, comment b. Therefore, the owner/occupier or contractee owes a duty “to an independent contractor and to his employees to turn over a reasonably safe place to work, or to give warning of any dangers.” , see also German v. Mountain States Tel.
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Ft. Lowell-NSS Ltd. Partnership v. Kelly 784 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
this court construed the term “others” as used in § 422 and other Restatement exceptions to exclude such employees, in part because they were covered by the worker’s compensation statutes and to hold otherwise would impose greater liability on the employer than he would have to his own employees
Cordova v. Parrett 703 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Cordova v. Parrett 703 P.2d 1228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. 682 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Koepke v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. 682 P.2d 425 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Mason v. Arizona Public Service Co. 622 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Mason v. Arizona Public Service Co. 622 P.2d 493 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Ill, , and Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 413, 416, 422 and 427.
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Sullins v. Third & Catalina Construction Partnership 602 P.2d 495 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
and therefore Restatement § 424 is inapplicable in this jurisdiction.
Pruett v. Precision Plumbing, Inc. 554 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Pruett v. Precision Plumbing, Inc. 554 P.2d 655 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Allison Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court 523 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Allison Steel Manufacturing Co. v. Superior Court 523 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Citizen's Utility, Inc. v. Livingston 515 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Citizen's Utility, Inc. v. Livingston 515 P.2d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
This interrogatory stated: “If you find that the relationship between Citizen’s and the Dykes crew was that of employer and independent contractor, did Citizens retain control only in effecting a result in accordance with Citizen’s design and not control the manner of execution of the work.” (Emphasis in original) Contrary to appellee’s contention, , does not support her position.
Jackson v. Sergent, Hauskins & Beckwith Engineers, Inc. 512 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Jackson v. Sergent, Hauskins & Beckwith Engineers, Inc. 512 P.2d 862 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Parks v. Atkinson 505 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Parks v. Atkinson 505 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Hammer v. Bell Construction Co. 491 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hammer v. Bell Construction Co. 491 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Fluor Corporation, Ltd. v. Sykes, 3 Ariz.App.
Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company 485 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Basurto v. Utah Construction & Mining Company 485 P.2d 859 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Reber Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Chandler High School District 202 474 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Reber Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Chandler High School District 202 474 P.2d 852 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc. 474 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc. 474 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Does appellant have a claim against the appellee under the sections of the Restatement of Torts pertaining to a landowners’ or contractors’ liability, , ?
E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
German v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 462 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
German v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 462 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Schenks v. Earnhardt Ford Sales Co. 454 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Schenks v. Earnhardt Ford Sales Co. 454 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Chesin Construction Co. v. Epstein 446 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Distinguished Chesin Construction Co. v. Epstein 446 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
is clearly distinguishable in the degree of the control exercised.
Davidson v. Wee 424 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Davidson v. Wee 424 P.2d 835 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
However, even if there were required a showing that the contents of the bottle purchased by the plaintiff contained the standard product, we find sufficient evidence for the trial court, in its discretion, , , to have found a sufficient foundation in this regard.
Gibralter Escrow Co. v. Thomas J. Grosso Investment, Inc. 421 P.2d 923 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966