DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., 303 P.2d 717.

49 citing documents.

  • Shafer v. Walgreen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • Shafer v. Walgreen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    Airlines, Inc., (“The doctrine applies only where the physical cause of the injury and the attendant circumstances indicate such an unusual occurrence that in their very nature they carry a strong inherent probability of negligence .
  • Martin v. Royal Sign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Martin v. Royal Sign Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Robertson Co., Inc., -32 (1978) (quoting Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., ).
  • McDonald v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 757 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • McDonald v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. 757 P.2d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Sharman v. Skaggs Companies, Inc. 602 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Sharman v. Skaggs Companies, Inc. 602 P.2d 833 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    n the exclusive control of defendant; “(3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of the plaintiff; “(4) plaintiff must not be in a position to show the particular circumstances which caused the offending agency or instrumentality to operate to his injury.” -32 , -25 (1978)
  • Jackson v. HH Robertson Co., Inc. 574 P.2d 822 Ariz. 1978
  • Jackson v. HH Robertson Co., Inc. 574 P.2d 822 Ariz. 1978
    Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D, Comment b. The necessary conditions for a , : “(1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of some one’s negligence; “(2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant; “(3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of the plaintiff; “(4)
  • McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
  • McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
    Capps v. American Airlines, Inc.
  • Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company 539 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • Byars v. Arizona Public Service Company 539 P.2d 534 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    While we may therefore conclude that plaintiff was not precluded here from asserting res ipsa loquitur, we find the doctrine to be inapplicable to the facts before us. *426 , : “(1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of some one’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of the plainti
  • Riedisser v. Nelson 534 P.2d 1052 Ariz. 1975
  • Riedisser v. Nelson 534 P.2d 1052 Ariz. 1975
    The appellants first argue the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the elements of which are well set forth in Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , : “(1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of some one’s negligence; “(2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant; “(3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of the plaintiff; “(4)
  • TUCSON GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. Larsen 506 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
  • TUCSON GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY v. Larsen 506 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
    For guidance on the res ipsa loquitur question, both parties rely on Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , in which our Supreme Court set down the following requirements for application of the doctrine : “1.
  • Falcher v. St. Luke's Hospital Medical Center 506 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
  • Falcher v. St. Luke's Hospital Medical Center 506 P.2d 287 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
    Further, the circumstance that the patient is unconscious at the time of the accident, while it may bear on the fourth requirement for the application of res ipsa loquitur as enumerated in Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , 1 does not always dictate application *251 of the doctrine.
  • Blair v. Saguaro Lake Development Co. 495 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Blair v. Saguaro Lake Development Co. 495 P.2d 512 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Walker v. McClanahan 494 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Walker v. McClanahan 494 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • Holland v. Kitterman 481 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Holland v. Kitterman 481 P.2d 549 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    these are: “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has-been clearly defined by this court in many prior cases.
  • Lewis v. Cooley 480 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
  • Lewis v. Cooley 480 P.2d 370 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
    The Arizona law on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is set forth in Capps v. American Airlines, Inc.
  • Compton v. National Metals Company 459 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
  • Compton v. National Metals Company 459 P.2d 93 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
    Capps v. American Airlines, Inc.
  • Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
  • Orlando v. Northcutt 441 P.2d 58 Ariz. 1968
    In O’Donnell we reiterated the conditions necessary for the application of the doctrine, quoting from Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , : “ ‘(1) the accident must he of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the-absence of some one’s negligence; “ ‘(2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant; “ ‘(3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of the plaintiff
  • Tucson General Hospital v. Russell 437 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
  • Tucson General Hospital v. Russell 437 P.2d 677 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
    RES IPSA LOQUITUR It is the law in Arizona, , that the conditions necessary for the application of the doctrine are: “(1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of some one’s negligence; “(2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant; “(3) it
  • O'DONNELL v. Maves 436 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1968
  • O'DONNELL v. Maves 436 P.2d 577 Ariz. 1968
    In Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , , we said: “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been clearly defined by this court in many prior cases.
  • Snethen v. Gomez 432 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Snethen v. Gomez 432 P.2d 914 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    Phen v. All American Bus Lines, Inc., supra, [ , ] 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 220(10).”
  • Orlando v. Northcutt 430 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
  • Orlando v. Northcutt 430 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
    which case in turn cites Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , and in the light of the rule stated in Deisler, we are unable to state that there was error in the trial court’s refusal to instruct on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
  • First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. 406 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
  • First National Bank of Arizona v. Otis Elevator Co. 406 P.2d 430 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
    The conditions determining the applicability of res ipsa loquitur have been clearly set down in Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , as follows: (1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of some one’s negligence ; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action on the part of
  • Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc. 399 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1965
  • Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc. 399 P.2d 681 Ariz. 1965
    Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , ; Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 195.
  • Throop v. FE Young and Company 382 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1963
  • Throop v. FE Young and Company 382 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1963
    *159 In Capps v. American Airlines, Inc., , , this Court said: “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur has been clearly defined by this court in many prior cases.
  • Nieman v. Jacobs 347 P.2d 702 Ariz. 1959