Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company, 286 P.2d 761.

46 citing documents.

Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Robin Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic Ariz. 2025
Co., )); (“Wantonness implies a reckless indifference to the results of an act.”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 501 (Am.
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Torres v. Jai Dining Services Ariz. 2023
Co., (describing simple negligence as “involv[ing] the creation of an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to another”); cf. Indus.
Greg Shepherd v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Ariz. 2021
Greg Shepherd v. Costco Wholesale Corporation Ariz. 2021
Co., (stating “that ‘[w]hile a violation of [an employer’s safety] rule would not constitute negligence per se, it would be a circumstance for the jury to consider on the issue of respondent’s negligence’” (quoting Powell v. Pac.
Max of Switzerland, Inc. v. Allright Corp. 930 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Max of Switzerland, Inc. v. Allright Corp. 930 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Co., , -67 (1955) (quoting Powers v. Ellis, 231 Ind.
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
Tri-City Property Management Services, Inc. v. Research Products Corp. 721 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Tri-City Property Management Services, Inc. v. Research Products Corp. 721 P.2d 144 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
*256 One whose gross or wanton negligence proximately causes injury to another may not assert the other’s contributory negligence as a defense, , , , 50 A.L.R.2d 1 (1955); Restatement of Torts 2d § 482(1).
United Pacific/Reliance Insurance v. Kelley 618 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
United Pacific/Reliance Insurance v. Kelley 618 P.2d 257 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
it is not procedurally necessary or even desirable to require the joinder of the insurer in every case where the action is brought by the insured: * * * The general rule is that where the loss exceeds the amount of insurance paid, the insured may sue in his own name and recover the full amount o
Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District 595 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District 595 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
DeElena v. Southern Pacific Co. 592 P.2d 759 Ariz. 1979
that wanton negligence “involves the creation of an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to another (simple negligence) together with a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result (wantonness).” , 535 P.2
Reeves v. Markle 580 P.2d 2 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Reeves v. Markle 580 P.2d 2 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
W. R. Skousen Contractors, Inc. v. Chatter 536 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
W. R. Skousen Contractors, Inc. v. Chatter 536 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Co., , Matsumato v. Arizona Sand & Rock Co.
Kemp v. Pinal County 474 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Kemp v. Pinal County 474 P.2d 840 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Tucson Gas & Electric Company v. Superior Court 450 P.2d 722 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Esquivel v. Nancarrow 450 P.2d 399 Ariz. 1969
Tucson, Gas, Elec. Light & Power Company v. Board of Supervisors of Pima County 436 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Tucson, Gas, Elec. Light & Power Company v. Board of Supervisors of Pima County 436 P.2d 942 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Pacific Co., at 261 , , 50 A.L.R.2d 1 (1955)) and plaintiff’s counsel protests that Pima County still had an interest in the litigation.
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State v. Watson 436 P.2d 175 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
286 * A.L.R.2d 1 (1955); and see .29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 445, at 504—05.
Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
Evans v. Pickett 430 P.2d 413 Ariz. 1967
Peterson v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 391 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
Peterson v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District 391 P.2d 567 Ariz. 1964
50 A.L.R.2d 1 (1955), in holding that the safety rules of the employer were admissible, this court said: “Negligent conduct may be predicated upon the doing of an act which a reasonable man should realize involves an unreasonable risk of causing harm to another.
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company 378 P.2d 913 Ariz. 1963
Layne v. Hartung 348 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1960
Layne v. Hartung 348 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1960
Goodman v. Carson 325 P.2d 819 Ariz. 1958