Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Barry v. Southern Pac. Co., 166 P.2d 825.

32 citing documents.

North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
North v. Vps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Co., - 21 (1946) (“A trespasser is a person who enters or remains upon land in the possession of another without a privilege to do so created by the possessor’s consent or otherwise.”) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 329 (1965)).
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Payne v. M. Greenberg Construction 636 P.2d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Partin v. Olney 591 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Partin v. Olney 591 P.2d 74 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
the court approved the following definition of such misconduct: “The actor’s conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he intentionally does an act or fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reaso
Jones v. Manhart 585 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Jones v. Manhart 585 P.2d 1250 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 523 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Lueck 523 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1974
the Arizona Supreme Court quoted with approval from the Restatement of Torts § 500 which reads as follows; “The actor’s conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety or another if he intentionally does an act or fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reaso
Kelch v. Courson 439 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Kelch v. Courson 439 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
A. No sir.” Plaintiffs argue that the ‘to look is to see doctrine’, , , should be applied in this case, and contend that the testimony elicited above to the effect that Nicholson did not see the Underwood plane land is negative evidence and is subject to the negative evidence rule.
Parker's Hamburger Number One v. Fitzgerald 356 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1960
Parker's Hamburger Number One v. Fitzgerald 356 P.2d 25 Ariz. 1960
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
Conchin v. El Paso & S. W. R. Co., , 108 P. 260 , 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 88.
Trauscht v. Lamb 270 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1954
Trauscht v. Lamb 270 P.2d 1071 Ariz. 1954
Southern Pac. Co. v. Baca 268 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1954
Southern Pac. Co. v. Baca 268 P.2d 963 Ariz. 1954
Co., , , we quoted with approval the definition of wanton negligence from the Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol.
Walter v. Southern Arizona School for Boys, Inc. 267 P.2d 1076 Ariz. 1954
Walter v. Southern Arizona School for Boys, Inc. 267 P.2d 1076 Ariz. 1954
Co., , , and after he accepted Hamlin’s invitation to ride Stinger he became an invitee as to him.
Southern Pac. Co. v. Bolen 264 P.2d 401 Ariz. 1953
Southern Pac. Co. v. Bolen 264 P.2d 401 Ariz. 1953
Co., , , where one went to sleep on the tracks.
Scott v. Scott 252 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1953
Scott v. Scott 252 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1953
Butane Corporation v. Kirby 187 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1947
Butane Corporation v. Kirby 187 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1947
500, Comment a. We conclude that the evidence does not disclose that defendant’s conduct was tainted with that degree of recklessness to justify the label of “wanton misconduct” or “wanton negligence.” , , decided March 4, 1946, that a plaintiff cannot avoid the consequences of being guilty of contributory negligence merely by the artifice of pleading wilful or wanton negligence.