Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., 166 P.2d 816.

59 citing documents.

Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen 207 P.3d 654 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
See Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., -23 (1946), , ("[Tlhe defense of contributory negligence is not a defense in law to bar recovery for injuries inflicted by intentional or willful misconduct or wanton negligence.”); see also id.
In Re William G. 963 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
In Re William G. 963 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
at 341 , 476 P.2d at 151 (-11 , ).
Wareing v. Falk 897 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Wareing v. Falk 897 P.2d 1381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
For example, in Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., , the court characterized wilful or wanton misconduct as “wanton negligence.” In that decision, however, the court also stated that such conduct was an intentional wrong.
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Bauer v. Crotty 805 P.2d 392 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. 717 P.2d 434 Ariz. 1986
In Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., , we observed that “this constitutional provision has always been given effect where the legal defense of contributory *135 negligence existed.” Id.
Smith v. Delvin 728 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Smith v. Delvin 728 P.2d 1231 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
See, , Pearson & Dickerson Contractors
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Williams v. Wise 476 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1970
Williams v. Wise 476 P.2d 145 Ariz. 1970
* * * The difference between reckless misconduct and conduct involving only such a quantum of risk as is necessary to make it negligent is a ■difference in the degree of the risk, but this difference of degree is so marked as to amount substantially to a difference in kind.” A
Heimke v. Munoz 470 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1970
Heimke v. Munoz 470 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1970
Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., , , and cases cited.
Wade v. Seguin 462 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Wade v. Seguin 462 P.2d 100 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc.
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
Nichols v. Baker 416 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1966
Nichols v. Baker 416 P.2d 584 Ariz. 1966
LeRoy v. Phillips 399 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1965
LeRoy v. Phillips 399 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1965
In Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., , , , , we rejected the “range of vision” rule and Dennis, Coe, and Campbell, which had applied it.
Peterson v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 391 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh 367 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1962
In effect, plaintiffs ask that the negligence of Nicholson and the contributory negligence of Coyner be assumed, but seek to overcome Coyner’s , , that a finding of wanton negligence, etc., will overcome the bar of contributory negligence.
Layton v. Rocha 368 P.2d 444 Ariz. 1962
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
Michie v. Calhoun 336 P.2d 370 Ariz. 1959
In Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., -116 , , we said: “ * * * The rule if treated as absolute in all its implications would result in more harm than good.
State v. Chekmizoff 309 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1957
State v. Chekmizoff 309 P.2d 796 Ariz. 1957
Restatement of Torts, section 500; , ; , .
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
Womack v. Preach, supra; Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc., , ; , 108 P. 262 .
Zancanaro v. Hopper 286 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1955
Zancanaro v. Hopper 286 P.2d 205 Ariz. 1955
the court quoted with approval the following language from Campbell v. English, supra: “ We have passed upon the meaning and effect of this constitutional provision in innumerable cases and have held, in effect, that when the issue is one of contributory negligence, that is to say, when ther
Anderson v. Morgan 241 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1952
Anderson v. Morgan 241 P.2d 786 Ariz. 1952
* * * ” , , , , held that exceeding the speed limit fixed by statute was not negligence per se and cited in support thereof McIver v. Allen, supra.
Motors Ins. Corp. v. Rhoton 236 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1951
Motors Ins. Corp. v. Rhoton 236 P.2d 739 Ariz. 1951
nt of it to be bashed in when colliding with the Clark car, caused the Clark car to be bashed in, and then skidded a distance of 147 feet across the highway through an arroyo and up against 10-foot embankment where it came to rest, conclusively demonstrates that the accident was due to the sole, gross and wanton negligence of counterclaimants, , ; , .
Robinson v. Lehnert 229 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1951
Robinson v. Lehnert 229 P.2d 708 Ariz. 1951
wherein we cited Restatement of the Law, Torts, Vol.
Krauth v. Billar 226 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1951
Krauth v. Billar 226 P.2d 1012 Ariz. 1951
Texas-Arizona Motor Freight, Inc. v. Mayo 220 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1950
Texas-Arizona Motor Freight, Inc. v. Mayo 220 P.2d 227 Ariz. 1950
* * * ” , at page 109, , and is in line with the earlier cases of Calumet & Arizona Min.
Butane Corporation v. Kirby 187 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1947

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by