Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Morris v. Ortiz, 437 P.2d 652.

32 citing documents.

Jeanette M Sanders v. Francis Alger 394 P.3d 1083 Ariz. 2017
Jeanette M Sanders v. Francis Alger 394 P.3d 1083 Ariz. 2017
are the circumstances under which the reasonableness of the [defendant’s] conduct is to be judged.”) (footnote omitted); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 283(C) (Am.
Jeanette M. Sanders v. Francis Alger 375 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Jeanette M. Sanders v. Francis Alger 375 P.3d 1199 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
A person is negligent if he “fail[s] to act as a reasonable and prudent person would act in like circumstances.”
Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Garcia v. A-Plus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Negligence is “the failure to act as a reasonable and prudent person would act in like circumstances.”
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Hill v. Safford Unified School District 952 P.2d 754 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
Rogers, 170 Ariz. at 402 , 825 P.2d at 23 quoting Harper, James & Gray, The Law of Torts § 15.3 at 355 (2d ed. 1986); see also Orme School
Ward v. Mount Calvary Lutheran Church 873 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ward v. Mount Calvary Lutheran Church 873 P.2d 688 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Our supreme court has recognized that adults supervising the actions of children are not subject to strict liability for their injuries: *358
Verhel Ex Rel. Verhel v. Independent School District No. 709 359 N.W.2d 579 Minn. 1984
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
Jesik v. Maricopa County Community College District 611 P.2d 547 Ariz. 1980
Vreeland v. State Board of Regents, 9 Ariz.App.
DeHoney v. Hernandez 595 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1979
DeHoney v. Hernandez 595 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1979
Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District 595 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District 595 P.2d 1017 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
is the leading Arizona case on the subject.
Butler v. Wong 573 P.2d 86 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Black v. State 568 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Black v. State 568 P.2d 1132 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company 537 P.2d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company 537 P.2d 618 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Goedecke v. Price 506 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Goedecke v. Price 506 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
City of Scottsdale v. Kokaska 495 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
our Supreme Court analyzes the foresee ability aspect of duty as follows: “[6] To put it another way, to constitute actionable negligence the defendant, must owe a duty to the plaintiff, the; breach of which results proximately in: plaintiff’s injury.
Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Pierce v. Lopez 490 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
Berne v. Greyhound Parks of Arizona, Inc.
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
Each case involved varying and complex factual patterns, however, and since negligence is a breach of duty and is “relative to time, place and circumstance” ( , [1968], citing Caldwell v. Village of Island Park, 304 N. Y. 268 , 107 N.E.2d 441 [1952]), we feel that absent the most clear and compelling proof the question ought not to be decided as a matter of law.
Massengill v. Yuma County 456 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1969
Massengill v. Yuma County 456 P.2d 376 Ariz. 1969