Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward, 428 P.2d 419.

48 citing documents.

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)
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
See, , (“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.”) (citation omitted); see also Restatement (Second) of To
Millers National Insurance v. Taylor Freeman Insurance Agency 779 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Millers National Insurance v. Taylor Freeman Insurance Agency 779 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
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
Beach v. City of Phoenix 667 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
In this regard, the City urges that its duty to the traveling public should be no greater than that of the landowner to an invitee, that is, “there is no liability for injuries from the dangers that are obvious, or as well known to the persons injured as to the owner or occupant.” , quoting Foster v. A.P.
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
at 269 , at 421 (1967), our Supreme Court, citing a case from California, stated: “ ‘.
Forbes v. Romo 601 P.2d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Forbes v. Romo 601 P.2d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Martinez v. Jordan 553 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Martinez v. Jordan 553 P.2d 1239 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
George v. Fox West Coast Theatres 519 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
It argues that there was no “superiority” of knowledge on defendant’s
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
Slavin v. City of Tucson 495 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
Slavin v. City of Tucson 495 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1972
and see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343(A), particularly Comment on subsection (2) at page 222.” 10 Ariz. App. at 126 , 457 P.2d at 288 .
Hagan v. Sahara Caterers, Inc. 487 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hagan v. Sahara Caterers, Inc. 487 P.2d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
The court said: “ , this Court discussed the duty an occupier of land owes to a business invitee.
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
Arizona Public Service Company v. Brittain 486 P.2d 176 Ariz. 1971
They are not spaced uniformly.” Also, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, , , it would appear that Arizona Public Service Company had knowledge of the unique performance characteristics of helicopters ; that such characteristics made them especially adaptable for use in remote and rugged areas; t
Hlavaty v. Song 484 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Hlavaty v. Song 484 P.2d 660 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Morrow v. Trailmobile, Inc. 473 P.2d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Morrow v. Trailmobile, Inc. 473 P.2d 780 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Warfield v. Shell Oil Company 472 P.2d 50 Ariz. 1970
Warfield v. Shell Oil Company 472 P.2d 50 Ariz. 1970
this Court discussed the duty an occupier of land owes to a business invitee.
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
See Daugherty v.-.Montgomery Ward
Downey v. Lackey 466 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Downey v. Lackey 466 P.2d 401 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 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.
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
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
Rodgers v. Ray 457 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
and see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343(A), particularly Comment on subsection (2) at page 222.
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
for the reason that the conditions which plaintiff claims caused her accident were as open, obvious, and as well known to her as to the defendant.
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 445 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
American National Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. McNally 445 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1968
Our Supreme Court has said: “A party pleading negligence specifically, is limited to the grounds specifically pleaded.”
Heth v. Del Webb's Highway Inn 429 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1967
Heth v. Del Webb's Highway Inn 429 P.2d 442 Ariz. 1967
Although a property owner or occupant is not an insurer of the safety of his invitees ( , , decided May 25, 1967) he owes a duty to such invitees to have his premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give warning of latent or concealed perils (Ibid).