Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Cummings v. Prater, 386 P.2d 27.

87 citing documents.

Perez v. Circle K Ariz. 2025
Perez v. Circle K Ariz. 2025
(affirming directed verdict for a landlord in a premises liability case on the issue of breach); (affirming summary judgment for a landlord in a premises liability case on the issue of breach); see also Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 143 ¶ 9 n.1 (stating that summary judgment may sometimes be appropriate on issues of breach and causation); Grafitti-Valenzuela ex rel.
Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst 563 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Rachelle Renee Westerman, Paul Bryan Westerman v. Timothy E. Ernst 563 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
But “the open and obvious condition is merely a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether the condition was unreasonably dangerous.”
Martinez v. Blake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Martinez v. Blake Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Piccola By & (emphasis added) ().
Perez v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Perez v. Circle K Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
(quoting 2 Fowler V. Harper and Fleming James, Jr., The Law of Torts § 27.13 (1956)) (internal citations omitted); -70 (1967); -63 (1979)
Ager v. a Better Today Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Ager v. a Better Today Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(quoting Harper and James, The Law of Torts § 27.13).
McCall v. Arvidson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
McCall v. Arvidson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sarkilahti v. Bristol Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Sarkilahti v. Bristol Group Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lane v. Gavilan Peak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Lane v. Gavilan Peak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶17 Regarding the merits of the claim, our supreme court has explained the general rule that a landlord is “under a duty of ordinary care to inspect the premises when he has reason to suspect defects existing at the time of the taking of the tenancy and to either repair them or warn the tenant of their existence.”
Proctor v. Pvusd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Proctor v. Pvusd Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
D'Ambrosio v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
D'Ambrosio v. Phoenix Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A condition is not unreasonably dangerous if it is open and obvious, that is, “[i]f people who are likely to encounter a condition may be expected to take perfectly good care of themselves without further precautions, then the condition is not unreasonably dangerous because the likelihood of harm is slight.”
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
341, 343 , (“the bare fact that a condition is ‘open and obvious’ does not necessarily mean that it is not unreasonably dangerous.” ( , )).
Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Piccola by and Through Piccola v. Woodall 921 P.2d 710 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
-12 , -60 (App.1989); Presson v. Mountain States Properties, Inc., 18 Ariz.App.
Bellezzo v. State 851 P.2d 847 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Shaw v. Petersen 821 P.2d 220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Udy v. Calvary Corp. 780 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Udy v. Calvary Corp. 780 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
(emphasis added; footnote omitted); see Stephens v. Stearns, 106 Idaho 249 , (citing Cummings as placing Arizona among jurisdictions that follow modern trend abandoning strict application of doctrine of caveat emptor in landlord-tenant relationship); see also Presson v.
McLEOD BY AND THROUGH SMITH v. Newcomer 785 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
McLEOD BY AND THROUGH SMITH v. Newcomer 785 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
The nature of a landlord’s duty to a , where the supreme court stated: [T]he landlord is under a duty of ordinary care to inspect the premises when he had reason to suspect defects existing at the time of the taking of the tenancy and to either repair them or warn the tenant of their existence.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Challenge, Inc. 725 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Challenge, Inc. 725 P.2d 727 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Johnson v. Tucson Estates, Inc. 683 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Johnson v. Tucson Estates, Inc. 683 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
our supreme court said: Of course, the bare fact that a condition is “open and obvious” does not necessarily mean that it is not unreasonably dangerous.
Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc. 652 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1982
Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., Inc. 652 P.2d 1040 Ariz. 1982
Beach v. City of Phoenix 667 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Smedberg v. Simons 631 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1981
Smedberg v. Simons 631 P.2d 530 Ariz. 1981
* * * The open and obvious condition is merely a factor to be taken into consideration in determining whether the condition was unreasonably dangerous.” , (Emphasis in original; citations omitted.)
Shirkey v. Crain & Associates Management Co. 629 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Shirkey v. Crain & Associates Management Co. 629 P.2d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
is: “[T]he landlord is under a duty of ordinary care to inspect the premises when he has reason to suspect defects existing at the time of the taking of the tenancy and to either repair them or warn the tenant of their existence”.
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
Flowers v. K-Mart Corp. 616 P.2d 955 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
“Of course, the bare fact that a condition is ‘open and obvious’ does not necessarily mean that it is not unreasonably dangerous.” (Emphasis supplied) , Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., 2 Ariz.App.
McFarland v. Kahn 597 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1979
McFarland v. Kahn 597 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1979
Geiler v. Arizona Bank 537 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Geiler v. Arizona Bank 537 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Krumtum v. Burton 532 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1975
Krumtum v. Burton 532 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1975
There was genuine issue of fact upon which reasonable men might differ, , and summary judgment was improper.
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by