Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Caruth v. Mariani, 463 P.2d 83.

35 citing documents.

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
State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Explained State Farm Insurance Companies v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc. 142 P.3d 1232 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
2 In *422 , this court discussed application of the doctrine to those involved in the chain of a defective product’s distribution.
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
On the other hand, a defect not attributable to the design or manufacture of the product and that arose after the product left the manufacturer’s control would render 25 only the seller strictly liable.12 See § 12-683(2); Dietz
Robert E. Mann Construction Co. v. Liebert Corp. 60 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Robert E. Mann Construction Co. v. Liebert Corp. 60 P.3d 708 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(strict tort liability extends to nonusers and non-purchasers injured as result of foreseeable use of defective product).
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
Since strict liability in tort is imposed by law for reasons of public policy, , public policy reasons are appropriate factors for case-by-case determination whether a structure is a product within this doctrine.
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
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1218 Ariz. 1987
Barmat v. John and Jane Doe Partners AD 747 P.2d 1218 Ariz. 1987
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel 719 P.2d 1058 Ariz. 1986
modified , Werner v. Upjohn Co., supra.
Ruiz v. OLIS ELEVATOR 703 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Ruiz v. OLIS ELEVATOR 703 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
in which we held that the doctrine of strict liability applied to a bystander.
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
: Thus, whether SRP may invoke the tort doctrine of strict liability or is barred by UCC provisions turns largely upon a determination of whether its claim is a tort claim governed by tort law, or a contract claim governed by the UCC, or partly one and partly the other.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 694 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 694 P.2d 267 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jordan v. Sunnyslope Appliance Propane & Plumbing Supplies Co. 660 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Jordan v. Sunnyslope Appliance Propane & Plumbing Supplies Co. 660 P.2d 1236 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
: Strict tort liability is based on public policy....
State Ex Rel. Collins v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 644 P.2d 1266 Ariz. 1982
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
the Court held that strict tort liability as to a manufacturer and retailer was available to bystanders.
Empire MacHinery Corp. v. Industrial Cab Co. 504 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Empire MacHinery Corp. v. Industrial Cab Co. 504 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Tucson Industries, Incorporated v. Schwartz 501 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1972
Tucson Industries, Incorporated v. Schwartz 501 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1972
uries caused by products intended for consumption be placed upon those who market them, and be treated as a cost of production against which liability insurance can be obtained; and that the consumer of such products is entitled to the maximum of protection' at the hands of someone, and the proper persons to afford it are those who market the products.” Our Court of Appeals, , , explained Stapley, stipra, saying: “Strict tort liability is based on public policy.
Chrysler Corporation v. McCarthy 484 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Chrysler Corporation v. McCarthy 484 P.2d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
See Caruth v. Mariani, opinion on rehearing
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
426 , , reversing on rehearing 10 Ariz.App.