Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Evans v. Pickett, 430 P.2d 413.

57 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
–98 (1967) (discussing duty of motorist, based on a traffic statute, to maintain a reasonable speed to avoid collisions with other motorists), (discussing duty of motorist, based on a traffic statu
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
Williams v. Thude 934 P.2d 1349 Ariz. 1997
State v. Noriega 928 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Noriega 928 P.2d 706 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(The test of the propriety of an instruction “is whether the jury would be misled as to the proper rule of law.”) Using this approach, we turn to the subject of the mere presence doctrine.
Smith v. Johnson 899 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Smith v. Johnson 899 P.2d 199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
the supreme court applied the then-current version of A.R.S.
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Timmons v. City of Tucson 830 P.2d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
Pioneer Roofing Co., supra
Maricopa Partnerships, Inc. v. Petyak 790 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Maricopa Partnerships, Inc. v. Petyak 790 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Durnin v. Karber Air Conditioning Co. 778 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Durnin v. Karber Air Conditioning Co. 778 P.2d 1312 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co. 737 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Kuhnke v. Textron, Inc. 684 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Kuhnke v. Textron, Inc. 684 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
Yellow Cab Co. of Phoenix v. Green, 16 Ariz.App.
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Caldwell v. ARIZONA STATE BD. OF DENTAL EXAM. 670 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Bliss v. Treece 658 P.2d 169 Ariz. 1983
Townsend v. Whatton, 21 Ariz.App.
Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Starr v. Campos 655 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
*256 One whose gross or wanton negligence proximately causes injury to another may not assert the other’s contributory negligence as a defense, , , , 50 A.L.R.2d 1 (1955); Restatement of Torts 2d § 482(1).
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Hallmark v. Allied Products Corp. 646 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Miller v. Arnal Corp. 632 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Miller v. Arnal Corp. 632 P.2d 987 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
McGriff v. McGriff 560 P.2d 1230 Ariz. 1977
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the giving of the assumption of risk instruction, , the following can be said to have occurred.
McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
McGriff v. McGriff 549 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Viewing the facts, as we must, in a light most favorable to giving the instruction, , , rehearing denied , and applying them to the principles of law just discussed, we find that they reflect only a failure on the part of plaintiff to fully appreciate and comprehend the consequences of his own acts in r
Brierley v. Anaconda Company 522 P.2d 1085 Ariz. 1974
Brierley v. Anaconda Company 522 P.2d 1085 Ariz. 1974
Purchase v. MARDIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 520 P.2d 529 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Apigian v. Mills 512 P.2d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
P.2d 550 (1968); , Ruiz v. Faulkner, 12 Ariz.App.
Goslin v. Bacome 489 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1971
Goslin v. Bacome 489 P.2d 242 Ariz. 1971
Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Barker v. James 486 P.2d 195 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Beltran 478 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Sulpher Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Beltran 478 P.2d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
In such circumstances it is immaterial whether the conduct of the defendant, was more negligent than that of the plaintiffs’ decedents.’ ” (Emphasis added) In the case of Heimke v. Munoz, supra, the court stated: “We note a tendency, , , , , to instruct the jury that if it finds contributory negligence ‘the law would leave them (the parties) where it finds them.’ Such an instruction is expressly disapproved.
Heimke v. Munoz 470 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1970
Heimke v. Munoz 470 P.2d 107 Ariz. 1970
We note a tendency, , , , , to instruct the jury that if it finds contributory negligence “the law would leave them (the parties) where it finds them.” Such an instruction is expressly disapproved.
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Arnold v. Frigid Food Express Co. 453 P.2d 983 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
: “A person is wantonly negligent if he wilfully does an act or fails to do an act which it is his duty to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the plaintiff
Malinski v. Pember 453 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Malinski v. Pember 453 P.2d 540 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Kelch v. Courson 447 P.2d 550 Ariz. 1968