Cited by

¶ 18 (describing the school-student relationship duty as “encompassing risks such as those that occur while the student is at school or otherwise under the school’s control” (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., –58 ¶ 6 (App. 2014))).

Our supreme court has clarified that duties arising from a special relationship only apply to risks “within the scope of the relationship,” which is “bounded by geography and time.” Dinsmoor, ¶¶ 17-18 (quoting Boisson, and then Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., ).

¶ 18 (quoting Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., ).

that occur while the student is at school or otherwise under the school’s control.”) (quoting 4 PEREZ v. PATTERSON Decision of the Court Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., -58, ¶ 6, n.2 (App. 2014)).

at 374, ¶¶ 17-18 (citing Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., -58, ¶ 6 (App. 2014)).

Dist., (school district owed duty to protect student from assault on school campus); Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., (school owed no duty to protect student during travel to and from school).

See Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., ¶ 6 (App. 2014).

§ 37-623(A)) *239 (emphasis added); 3 see also Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., ¶ 17 , (noting that a public-poliey-based duty of care is generally grounded in statute or the common law, and [i]n many instances, the legislature reflects public policy by codifying certain duties and obligations”).

See, e.g., Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., ¶ 15 (App. 2014) (Because state agency guidelines were not implemented as 6 LORENZ v. STATE, et al. Opinion of the Court formal rules, they “cannot be construed as rules or regulations, nor do they have the force and

“In many instances, the legislature reflects public policy by codifying certain duties and obligations.” Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., ¶ 17

See Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., , 158 n. 3, ¶ 8, , 874 n. 3 (App.2014) (Attorney General Opinions, while advisory, may be cited for persuasive value).

Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 145 ¶ 18, ¶ 23, 150 P.3d at 232 ; accord Monroe v. Basis School, Inc., , 157 ¶ 5, 159 ¶ 12, 875 (App.2014); see also Randolph v. Ariz. Bd.

Lubrication Serv., Inc., ¶ 20, but see Monroe v. Basis Sch., Inc., ¶ 15, (rejecting Arizona Department of Transportation guidelines as basis for tort duty).