Cited by

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

87 citing documents.

George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
-27 , our Supreme Court considered the “open and obvious” rule as it affects a defendant’s duty: “One of the tests used in determining whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous is whether it is ‘open and obvious’ or as it has been better put: ‘If people who are likely to encounter a cond
Brierley v. Anaconda Co. 515 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Brierley v. Anaconda Co. 515 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
the court stated: “One of the tests used in determining whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous is whether it is ‘open and obvious’ or as it has been better put: ‘If people who are likely to encounter a condition may be expected to take perfectly good care of themselves without further prec
Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc. 511 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc. 511 P.2d 699 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Presson v. Mountain States Properties, Inc. 501 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Presson v. Mountain States Properties, Inc. 501 P.2d 17 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
The most recent pronouncement of our Supreme Court on the subject of landlord’s liability to exercise due care for a tenant’s
Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc. 481 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1971
Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc. 481 P.2d 855 Ariz. 1971
St. Gregory's Church v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
St. Gregory's Church v. O'CONNOR 477 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
wherein our Supreme Court stated: “Of course, the bare fact that a condition is ‘open and obvious’ does not necessarily mean that it is not unreasonably dangerous.
Burke v. Arizona Biltmore Hotel, Inc. 467 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Burke v. Arizona Biltmore Hotel, Inc. 467 P.2d 781 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Management Clearing, Inc. v. Vance 464 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Management Clearing, Inc. v. Vance 464 P.2d 977 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Maas v. Dreher 460 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Maas v. Dreher 460 P.2d 191 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
65 , , , Moore v. Southwestern Sash & Door Co.
Fonda v. City of Mesa 456 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Fonda v. City of Mesa 456 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Mermis v. Weeden & Co., 8 Ariz.App.
Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets 454 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Rhodes v. El Rancho Markets 454 P.2d 1016 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
“People can get hurt on al *580 most anything.”
Yuma Furniture Company v. Rehwinkel 448 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Yuma Furniture Company v. Rehwinkel 448 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc., supra, quoting from an Arizona Supreme Court case, , points out that under Arizona law there may still he a breach of duty even if the -dangerous condition is open and obvious: “ ‘Of course, the bare fact that a condition is “open and obvious” does not necessarily mean that it is not unreasonably dangerous.
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
Also see, , where the better test was stated as follows: “If 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.
Hensley v. A. J. Bayless Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Hensley v. A. J. Bayless Stores, Inc. 429 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1967
Arizona Coffee Shops, Inc. v. Phoenix Downtown Parking Association, Inc.
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 428 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1967
Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward 428 P.2d 419 Ariz. 1967
the tests used in determining whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous is whether it is ‘open and obvious’ *270 or as it has been better put: ‘If 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.’ ” , .
Wiseman v. Young 422 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Wiseman v. Young 422 P.2d 404 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Standard Oil Co. 414 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
State Ex Rel. Industrial Commission v. Standard Oil Co. 414 P.2d 992 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, , and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, , the following facts are apparent.
Ray Scottsdale Lumber Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 414 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Ray Scottsdale Lumber Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 414 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc. 409 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Murphy v. El Dorado Bowl, Inc. 409 P.2d 57 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
decided since the trial of this case: “One of the tests used in determining whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous is whether it is ‘open and obvious’ or as it has been better put: ‘If people who are likely to encounter a condition may be expected to take perfectly good care of the