Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Tucker v. Collar, 285 P.2d 178.

74 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 duty based on foreseeability exists when a defendant realizes or should realize that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of harm to a “foreseeable plaintiff.”
Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
Rosen v. Knaub 857 P.2d 381 Ariz. 1993
and Lyle v. Boyle, 16 Ariz.App.
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rosen v. Knaub 842 P.2d 1317 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrum 825 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Rogers by and Through Standley v. Retrum 825 P.2d 20 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Prosser and Keeton, supra § 42, at 275; , (“Much confusion has resulted from many courts disposing of cases upon the ground defendant’s act was not the proximate cause of an injury when the proper basis was that there was no negligence.”).
Lasma Corp. v. Monarch Insurance 764 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Lasma Corp. v. Monarch Insurance 764 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hudson, 15 Ariz.App.
Hamman v. County of Maricopa 775 P.2d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Hamman v. County of Maricopa 775 P.2d 1117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
WILLIAMS BY WILLIAMS v. Stewart 703 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
WILLIAMS BY WILLIAMS v. Stewart 703 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
See W. Prosser & W. Keeton, supra, § 43; , Schnyder v. Empire Metals, Inc.
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Rossell v. Volkswagen of America 709 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
This issue is usually presented to the jury, as in Tucker v. Collar, supra [ , ] where there is a debatable question whether the injury to plaintiff was within the foreseeable scope of the risk or whether defendant was required to recognize the risk or take precautions against it.
Schnyder v. Empire Metals, Inc. 666 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Schnyder v. Empire Metals, Inc. 666 P.2d 528 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
The risk which must be anticipated to convert an act into a wrong is a risk of harm not to anyone but to plaintiff or “to another or others within the range of apprehension.” , (quoting from Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., supra).
McFarlin v. Hall 619 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1980
McFarlin v. Hall 619 P.2d 729 Ariz. 1980
See Harper and James, supra at 1147, n. 43; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 281, comment g
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
Rimondi v. Briggs 606 P.2d 412 Ariz. 1980
foreseeability is an element of negligence.
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
Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Rodriguez v. Besser Co. 565 P.2d 1315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
and by this Court in Lyle v. Boyle, 16 Ariz.App.
Thompson v. Bryson 505 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Thompson v. Bryson 505 P.2d 572 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Parsons v. Smithey 504 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1973
Parsons v. Smithey 504 P.2d 1272 Ariz. 1973
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
*124 FORESEEABILITY INSTRUCTIONS Edwards requested two instructions relating to “foreseeability”
TUCSON INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED v. Schwartz 487 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
TUCSON INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED v. Schwartz 487 P.2d 12 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Lyle v. Boyle 492 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Lyle v. Boyle 492 P.2d 447 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
n negligence for Roger Lyle’s injuries, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged negligent conduct of such defendants was such that acting reasonably and prudently, such defendants should have recognized their acts created an appreciable chance of causing the harm done, rather than a bare possibility thereof.” , and approved by our Supreme Court.
Travelers Indemnity Company v. Hudson 488 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Travelers Indemnity Company v. Hudson 488 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
The proper test is whether or not the harm was likely to result from the person’s action or failure to act according to the usual experience of persons.” 144 , 180 (1955).
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 458 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 458 P.2d 361 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
our Supreme Court quoted with approval from the Restatement of Torts: “ ‘Certain forms of conduct are negligent because they tend to subject certain interests of another to a particular hazard or type of hazard or to a limited number of hazards of a definite character.
Burns v. Wheeler 446 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1968
Burns v. Wheeler 446 P.2d 925 Ariz. 1968
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Wilson v. City of Tucson 446 P.2d 504 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
Citing, a; related section of the Restatement, our; , defined “negligent conduct” thus: .
Wright v. Demeter 442 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Wright v. Demeter 442 P.2d 888 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Paul v. Holcomb 442 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Paul v. Holcomb 442 P.2d 559 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
which decision applies the rule of Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y.