Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Shell Oil Co. v. Gutierrez, 581 P.2d 271.

52 citing documents.

Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Fong v. City of Phoenix 551 P.3d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See, (affirming preclusion of expert testimony on the adequacy of warning labels on drums of industrial solvent and reasoning that such testimony would not “aid the trier of fact” because “[t]he jury was as competent as any expert to determine whether the ‘FLAMMABLE LIQUID’ label was adequate to convey the
Conklin Et Ux v. Medtronic Inc 431 P.3d 571 Ariz. 2018
Conklin Et Ux v. Medtronic Inc 431 P.3d 571 Ariz. 2018
Foam Indus., Inc., –05 (App. 1996); –34 (App. 1978).
Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Shurts v. Shurts Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
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
-59 , -27 (App.1985) (reversing jury verdict because trial court erroneously refused to instruct jury that defendant could be held strictly liable for failing to warn of product dangers that manufacturer had “reason to foresee”); , (holding that whether a product is defective or unreasonably dangerous because of a failure to warn depends on foreseeability, seriousness, and the cost of preventing injury).
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Myers Ex Rel. Myers v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. 170 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
the manufacturer's duty to warn is ordinarily satisfied if a proper warning is given to the prescribing physician."); , (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 cmt.
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
However, “[u]nder the ‘learned intermediary doctrine,’ ‘the manufacturer’s duty to warn is ordinarily satisfied if a proper warning is given to the specialized class of people that may prescribe or administer the product.’ ” , (quoting Piper, 180 Ariz. at 178 n. 3, 883 P.2d at 415 n. 3); -33 , -78 (1978).
Aldrich v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 860 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Aldrich v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF ARIZONA 860 P.2d 1354 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Tucson Associates Ltd. Partnership 799 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Tucson Associates Ltd. Partnership 799 P.2d 860 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Associated Merchandising Corp. 782 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Associated Merchandising Corp. 782 P.2d 1187 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Ace Automotive Products, Inc. v. Van Duyne 750 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Ace Automotive Products, Inc. v. Van Duyne 750 P.2d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Rabe v. Cut and Curl of Plaza 75, Inc. 715 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Rabe v. Cut and Curl of Plaza 75, Inc. 715 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Schneider v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 722 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Schneider v. Cessna Aircraft Co. 722 P.2d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents 711 P.2d 1207 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Raschke v. Carrier Corp. 703 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Raschke v. Carrier Corp. 703 P.2d 556 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
With regard to the contention that Carrier failed to warn of the likelihood of danger from improper installation, a manufacturer has a duty to warn if, without the warning, the product would be “in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer____” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)
DeForest v. DeForest 694 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
DeForest v. DeForest 694 P.2d 1241 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 694 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1984
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 694 P.2d 198 Ariz. 1984
Stapley Co. v. Miller, supra
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
Foremost-McKesson Corp. v. Allied Chemical Co. 680 P.2d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Foremost-McKesson Corp. v. Allied Chemical Co. 680 P.2d 818 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Groener v. Briehl 661 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United States v. Skeet, 665 F.2d 983 (9th Cir.1982); Randolph v. Collectramatic, Inc., 590 F.2d 844 (10th Cir.1979)
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 667 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 667 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Young v. Environmental Air Products, Inc. 665 P.2d 88 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Restatement (Second) Torts § 442B
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Restatement, Second, Torts § 402A, comments i and j. Under § 402A, products though faultlessly made, may nevertheless be deemed “defective” if it is unreasonably dangerous to place the product in the hands of the user without a suitable warning.
James v. Cox 634 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
James v. Cox 634 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc., P.2d 1102 (1975)
Shell Oil Company v. Christie 607 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Shell Oil Company v. Christie 607 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Plaintiff/appellant brought this lawsuit for indemnity or contribution from the de *39 fendants/appellees, defendants with appellant in the personal injury case