Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite OS Stapley Company v. Miller, 447 P.2d 248.

108 citing documents.

Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 667 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 667 P.2d 750 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
our Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of strict products liability set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965) which provides in relevant part: (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to lia
Deyoe v. Clark Equipment Co., Inc. 655 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
Deyoe v. Clark Equipment Co., Inc. 655 P.2d 1333 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
we need not consider this issue in view of the jury’s answer.
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile 640 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1982
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile 640 P.2d 851 Ariz. 1982
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
Kavanaugh v. Kavanaugh 641 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
It has been defined as a use of a product “for certain purposes or in a manner not reasonably foreseen by the manufacturer.”
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. 633 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1981
Flory v. Silvercrest Industries, Inc. 633 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1981
54 , based on the principles of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402(A) (1965), see Tucson Industries
Englehart v. Jeep Corp. 594 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1979
Englehart v. Jeep Corp. 594 P.2d 510 Ariz. 1979
this court considered the applicability of contributory negligence to products liability.
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Gaston v. Hunter 588 P.2d 326 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Dyer v. Best Pharmacal 577 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Dyer v. Best Pharmacal 577 P.2d 1084 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
McCarty v. F. C. Kingston Co., 22 Ariz.App.
Sullivan v. Green Manufacturing Co. 575 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Sullivan v. Green Manufacturing Co. 575 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
Rogers v. Unimac Co., Inc. 565 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1977
Rogers v. Unimac Co., Inc. 565 P.2d 181 Ariz. 1977
When this court adopted the theory of strict liability set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A (1965) , there was no apparent need to distinguish the rule in Greenman, supra, and the Restatement.
Scheller v. Wilson Certified Foods, Inc. 559 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Scheller v. Wilson Certified Foods, Inc. 559 P.2d 1074 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Ball Corporation v. George 556 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Ball Corporation v. George 556 P.2d 1143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
International Harvester Co. v. Chiarello 555 P.2d 670 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated 550 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1976
Byrns v. Riddell, Incorporated 550 P.2d 1065 Ariz. 1976
This court, , adopted the theory of Strict liability set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965).
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
Stroud v. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 542 P.2d 1102 Ariz. 1976
Epstein, Products Liability: Defenses Based on Plaintiff’s Conduct, 1968 Utah Law Review 267, 268-270 (May, 1968).” -561 , -253 (1968).
Rix v. Reeves 532 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Rix v. Reeves 532 P.2d 185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Maas v. Dreher, 10 Ariz.App.
McCarty v. FC Kingston Company 522 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
McCarty v. FC Kingston Company 522 P.2d 778 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
our Supreme Court, in adopting § 402, subsec.
Tucson Industries, Incorporated v. Schwartz 501 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1972
Tucson Industries, Incorporated v. Schwartz 501 P.2d 936 Ariz. 1972
Slonsky v. Phoenix Coca-Cola Bottling Company 499 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Slonsky v. Phoenix Coca-Cola Bottling Company 499 P.2d 741 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
See the concurring opinion in Nalbandian v. Byron Jackson Pumps, Inc.
Wetzel v. Commercial Chair Company 500 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Wetzel v. Commercial Chair Company 500 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
COMMERCIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT The strict liability of a manufacturer for injuries caused by its defective products, introduced into the stream of commerce for sale, is established law in Arizona, O. S. Stapley Co. v. Miller, 103 * P.2d 248 (1968); and any person injured as a result of such a product has a claim against the manufacturer under the doctrine of “Products Liability” or “Strict Tort Liability”.
Reader v. General Motors Corporation 483 P.2d 1388 Ariz. 1971
Reader v. General Motors Corporation 483 P.2d 1388 Ariz. 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
Lechuga, Inc. v. Montgomery 467 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Lechuga, Inc. v. Montgomery 467 P.2d 256 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Ford Motor Co. v. Lonon, 217 Tenn.
Estabrook v. JC Penney Company 464 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1970
Estabrook v. JC Penney Company 464 P.2d 325 Ariz. 1970
In 1968, we held; , that the Restatement definition applies in Arizona.
Caruth v. Mariani 463 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
Caruth v. Mariani 463 P.2d 83 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
our Supreme Court laid to rest the question of whether or not the manufacturer’s liability with regard to defects in his product rests upon contract or tort.