Cited by

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

74 citing documents.

Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
Morris v. Ortiz 437 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1968
would not do under the circumstances, , , and the principle is too well established for quibbling “that before liability may be imposed for an act [or the failure to act], the prevision of a reasonable person must be able to recognize danger of harm to the plaintiff or one in plaintiff’s situation.” , .
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
City of Tucson v. Wondergem 435 P.2d 77 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
and Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci, 3 Ariz.App.
Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci 414 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Tucson Rapid Transit Co. v. Tocci 414 P.2d 179 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
1253 (1928); -147 , 285-P.2d 178 (1955).
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 412 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1966
Rogers v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 412 P.2d 272 Ariz. 1966
Vegodsky v. City of Tucson 399 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Vegodsky v. City of Tucson 399 P.2d 723 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
Dobbertin v. Johnson 390 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1964
Dobbertin v. Johnson 390 P.2d 849 Ariz. 1964
Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center 380 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1963
Rosendahl v. Tucson Medical Center 380 P.2d 1020 Ariz. 1963
Shafer v. Monte Mansfield Motors 372 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1962
Shafer v. Monte Mansfield Motors 372 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1962
: “ * * * before liability may be imposed for an act, the prevision of a reasonable person must be able to recognize danger of harm to the plaintiff or one in plaintiff’s situation.
Gilbert v. Quinet 369 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1962
Gilbert v. Quinet 369 P.2d 267 Ariz. 1962
In discussing the Palsgraf decision this court has said: “The decision establishes the principle that before liability may be imposed for an act, the prevision of a reasonable person must be able to recognize danger of harm to the plaintiff or one in plaintiff’s situation.”
Matsumato v. Arizona Sand and Rock Company 295 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1956
Matsumato v. Arizona Sand and Rock Company 295 P.2d 850 Ariz. 1956
1253 , P.2d 178, we hold that if defendant, in loading the trucks in question, acting as a reasonable person, was able to foresee or should have foreseen an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiffs or one in plaintiffs’ situation as a result of rocks falling from the -trucks onto said highway, caused by overloading the s
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
Bryan v. Southern Pacific Company 286 P.2d 761 Ariz. 1955
“ * * * before liability may be imposed for an act, the prevision of a reasonable person must be able to recognize danger of harm to the plaintiff or one in plaintiff’s situation.’’ , .
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kelton 285 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1955
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kelton 285 P.2d 168 Ariz. 1955
See Tucker v. Collar, 79 Ariz. -, Ariz., .