Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Fedie v. Travelodge International, Inc., 782 P.2d 739.

32 citing documents.

Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
Ernest Quiroz Et Ux v. Alcoa Inc 416 P.3d 824 Ariz. 2018
a; see also Prosser & Keeton, § 43, at 285 (noting that the Restatement of Torts adopted foreseeability as a basis for duty); see Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc., –66 (App. 1989) (discussing the existence of duty based on Second Restatement §§ 302 and 302B, and noting that both sections rely on foreseeability to determine duty); (stating that Second Restatement § 302 cmt.
Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli 363 P.3d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli 363 P.3d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 12 First, Restatement Third § 7(a) is significantly broader than Restatement Second § 315, 8 the latter of which “has been adopted in Arizona and applied in support of no-duty determinations absent a special relationship.” , 337-38 ¶ 16, (citing Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc., , , ).
Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co. 275 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co. 275 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
See, e.g., Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc., , Davis *338 v. Mangelsdorf
Pompeneo v. Verde Valley Guidance Clinic 249 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Pompeneo v. Verde Valley Guidance Clinic 249 P.3d 1112 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
143 n. 1, ¶ 9, , 230 n. 1 (2007); see Fedie v. Travelodge Int'l, Inc., , ("Although proximate cause is usually a question of fact for the jury, `the determination of facts upon which there could be no reasonable difference of opinion is in the hands of the court.'" (quoting W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 45 at 319-20 (5th ed. 1984
Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Hamblin v. State 143 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
J.R. Norton, 116 Ariz. at 430 , 569 P.2d at 860 ; see also Fedie v. Travelodge Int'l, Inc., , W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, § 45, at 319-20 (5th ed.1984) ("the determination of facts upon which there could be no reasonable difference of opinion is in the hands of the court").
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
Gipson v. Kasey 129 P.3d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
1974) (“Whether or not there is a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains is based on foreseeability.”); Riddle v. Ariz. Oncology Servs., Inc., , (“As plaintiff correctly notes, foreseeability of harm appears to be an element of duty under Arizona case law.”); Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc., , (“One element of duty is foreseeability.”); City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska, 17 Ariz.App.
Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Wertheim v. Pima Co. Dupnik Pima Co. Sheriff Tucson Police Dept. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, -08, -20 (1997), quoting Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Ass’n, quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1965) (brackets added by supreme court); Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc.
Bloxham v. Glock Inc. 53 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
Bloxham v. Glock Inc. 53 P.3d 196 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
the [plaintiff] which gives to the [plaintiff] a right of protection.’” Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, -08 , -20 (1997), quoting Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Ass’n, , quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1965) (brackets added by supreme court); Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc.
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Knauss v. DND Neffson Co. 963 P.2d 271 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
See, e.g., Rager v. Superior Coach Sales & Serv., , ("[W]hether or not there is a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains is based on foreseeability.”); , Fedie v. Travelodge Int'l, Inc., , (”[O]ne element of duty is foreseeability.”); Chavez v. Tolleson Elem.
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 930 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n 930 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
See Fedie v. Travelodge Int'l, Inc.
Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Services., Inc. 924 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Services., Inc. 924 P.2d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
(school district owed duty to foreseeable user of marked crosswalk); Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc., , (“One element of duty is foreseeability.”).
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Knoell v. Cerkvenik-Anderson Travel, Inc. 891 P.2d 861 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Fedie v. Travelodge Int'l, Inc.
Delbridge v. Maricopa County Community College District 893 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Delbridge v. Maricopa County Community College District 893 P.2d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc.
Shuck v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. 872 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Shuck v. Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc. 872 P.2d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
See Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc.
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Although proximate cause is normally for the jury, “the determination of facts upon which there could be no reasonable difference of opinion is in the hands of the court.” , (quoting W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 45, at 319-20 (5th ed. 1984)).