Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hafner v. Beck, 916 P.2d 1105.

48 citing documents.

Jane Doe I; Jane Doe II; And John Doe v. Lenzner Medical Services Llc... ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Jane Doe I; Jane Doe II; And John Doe v. Lenzner Medical Services Llc... ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
SERVS., LLC Opinion of the Court actions raised by patients against their healthcare providers); see, (common law duty created by physician-patient relationship where physician provides treatment to patient); Stanley, ¶¶ 10-11, 13 (implicitly acknowledging that “traditional doctor-patient relationship” would create duty); see also § 13-3620(A) (creating statutory obligation for physicia
Jane Doe I & II; And John Doe... v. Shaunice Warr 566 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Jane Doe I & II; And John Doe... v. Shaunice Warr 566 P.3d 342 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
(“We do not understand the law to be that one owes a duty of reasonable care at all times to all people under all circumstances.”).
Perez v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Perez v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Gomez Pools v. Arizona Registrar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Gomez Pools v. Arizona Registrar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Dellinger v. Basami House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dellinger v. Basami House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
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
Markowitz, 146 Ariz. at 356; (“One who engages in negligent conduct is not 28 QUIROZ V. ALCOA Opinion of the Court automatically subject to potential legal liability.
Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc. 382 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Quiroz v. Alcoa Inc. 382 P.3d 75 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
(“We do not understand the law to be that one owes a duty of reasonable care at all times to all people under all circumstances.”).
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
229 Ariz. at 338 ¶ 18, , (“We do not understand the law to be that one owes a duty of reasonable care at all times to all people under all circumstances.
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
ility in a particular class of cases, a court may decide that the defendant has no duty or that the ordinary duty of reasonable care requires modification.”); ¶ 17 , (“We do not understand the law to be that one owes a duty of reasonable care at all times to all people under all circumstances.”) ( , ); Bloxham, 203 Ariz. at 275, ¶ 8 , 53 P.3d at 200 (same).
Diaz v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC. 230 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Diaz v. PHOENIX LUBRICATION SERVICE, INC. 230 P.3d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
(rejecting argument that duty should be based on professional standards described by plaintiffs expert instead of legal requirements); L.A.
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Ritchie v. Krasner 211 P.3d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 163 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(expert witness may not create duty through opinion when law does not recognize such duty).
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Dawson v. Withycombe 160 P.3d 1157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(expert witness may not create duty through opinion when law does not recognize such duty).
Gipson v. Kasey 150 P.3d 228 Ariz. 2007
Gipson v. Kasey 150 P.3d 228 Ariz. 2007
*146 ¶ 24 Kasey argues that recognizing a duty here would imply that all people owe a duty of care to all others at all times, a , 426 ¶ 17, (“We do not understand the law to be that one owes a duty of reasonable care at all times to all people under all circumstances.” ( , )), , 275 ¶ 8, (same).
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
(“We do not understand the law to be that one owes a duty of reasonable care at all times to all people under all circumstances.”).
Stanley v. McCarver 92 P.3d 849 Ariz. 2004
Stanley v. McCarver 92 P.3d 849 Ariz. 2004
¶4 MCC declared bankruptcy and was dismissed from the action, and the trial court, , granted summary judgment to Dr. McCarver and dismissed ONC from the ease.
Stanley v. McCarver 63 P.3d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Stanley v. McCarver 63 P.3d 1076 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
1 The superior court, , granted Dr. McCarver summary judgment because he “did not offer or intend to treat, care for or otherwise benefit the employee” and therefore lacked the requisite physician-patient relationship with Stanley.
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
“We do not understand the law to be that one owes a duty of reasonable care at all times to all people under all circumstances.”
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
State v. Wilson 26 P.3d 1161 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
Exception to Privilege for IME ¶ 28 , the state lastly contends the privilege is unavailable to Wilson because Krasner saw him for an IME, not as a treating physician.
Diggs v. Arizona Cardiologists, Ltd. 8 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Diggs v. Arizona Cardiologists, Ltd. 8 P.3d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
¶ 9 , decided as a matter of law that Dr. Valdez did not owe a duty to Mrs. Diggs.
Siemsen v. Davis 998 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
Siemsen v. Davis 998 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
(“Although standards for experts’ qualifications and admissibility of their opinions have been stretched considerably, we have not yet reached the point when experts can dictate the law.”).
Badia v. City of Casa Grande 988 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Badia v. City of Casa Grande 988 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
AZ BD. OF MED. EXAMINERS v. Super. Ct. 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Arizona Board of Medical Examiners v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Distinguished AZ BD. OF MED. EXAMINERS v. Super. Ct. 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
a case that the trial court dismissed as too broad and distinguishable from this case.
Distinguished Arizona Board of Medical Examiners v. Superior Court 922 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
a case that the trial court dismissed as too broad and distinguishable from this case.