Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and Company, 431 P.2d 108.

41 citing documents.

MAYWALD v. TOYOTA Ariz. 2026
h); see also Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., (defining a “defective article” as a product “that is not reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which such articles are sold and used” (citation modified)).
Antone v. Greater Arizona Auto Auction, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Antone v. Greater Arizona Auto Auction, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
6 of case); Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., -17, - 12 (1967) (adopting Restatement § 402A’s strict liability rule in Arizona).
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
54 , ; and Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., , for the rule that in Arizona the implied warranty doctrine is merged into the strict liability in tort doctrine.
Deadman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 743 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Deadman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona 743 P.2d 961 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
See Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Starkins v. Bateman 724 P.2d 1206 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., -18 , -13 (1967).
Creamer v. Raffety 699 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Creamer v. Raffety 699 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Dietz v. Waller 685 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1984
Dietz v. Waller 685 P.2d 744 Ariz. 1984
(early strict liability case).
Matts v. City of Phoenix 669 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Matts v. City of Phoenix 669 P.2d 94 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. 633 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1981
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. 633 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1981
426 , and Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Sullivan v. Green Manufacturing Co. 575 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sullivan v. Green Manufacturing Co. 575 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
See also Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
Rogers v. Unimac Co., Inc. 565 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1977
Rogers v. Unimac Co., Inc. 565 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1977
Eck v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., 9 Ariz.App.
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Reader v. General Motors Corp., supra
Wetzel v. Commercial Chair Company 500 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Wetzel v. Commercial Chair Company 500 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
O. S. Stapley Co. v. Miller, supra; , 11 Ariz.L.Rev.
State v. Cabrera 478 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
State v. Cabrera 478 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morrow v. Trailmobile, Inc. 473 P.2d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morrow v. Trailmobile, Inc. 473 P.2d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
114 , , ; Tucson General Hospital v. Russell, 7 Ariz.App.
Caruth v. Mariani 463 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Caruth v. Mariani 463 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
The applicability of the Uniform Sales Act to strict liability in tort has already been disposed of by us in the case of Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., , wherein we made it clear that liability is not governed by the law of contract warranties but by the law of strict liability in tort.
Maas v. Dreher 460 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Maas v. Dreher 460 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., , Tucson General Hospital v. Russell, 7 Ariz.App.
Wagner v. Coronet Hotel 458 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Wagner v. Coronet Hotel 458 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Restatement, Second, Torts § 402(A), Comment F; Bailey v. Montgomery Ward and *301 Company, .
Eck v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. 453 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Eck v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. 453 P.2d 366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Since the pogo stick was purchased by the plaintiff’s mother for her son Ricky, no privity exists between plaintiff and defendant.”
Essex Wire Corp. of California v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 451 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Essex Wire Corp. of California v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 451 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc, , , , 19 A.L.R.3d 1 (1966); Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Company
Tucson General Hospital v. Russell 437 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Tucson General Hospital v. Russell 437 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
llees a new trial, stated as an additional ground to res ipsa loquitur, that the evidence presented a jury question on the issue of appellant Picker’s liability under the doctrine of “implied warranty.” We believe what is meant by “implied warranty” is identical to the liability imposed by § 402(A) of Restatement (Second) of Torts, and adopted by this court in Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., , 4 The court in Bailey , stated the plaintiff must prove (1) that his injury was “ * * * caused by