Cited by

See, ¶ 12 (2004) (observing that Arizona courts have accepted “the sufficiency of the [doctor-patient] relationship as a basis for imposing a duty”).

Herrod’s failure to report “breached the applicable standard of care owed to the children.” ¶19 But as the superior court correctly concluded, and as our supreme court has explained, Arizona courts will not base the existence of a duty on “the medical profession’s ethical standards because such a notion conflates the existence of a duty with the standard of care.”

E.g., Ritchie, Koskovich v. Scottsdale Healthcare Hosps., No. 1 CA-CV 20-0371, 2021 WL 1098572 (Ariz. App. Mar.

And although liability for a joint undertaking may exist despite a lack of privity between two parties, this concept necessarily involves conduct a defendant undertook directly with or for a plaintiff, see, ¶ 13 (2004) (finding a duty where doctor agreed, for consideration, to interpret patient’s medical record and report results), and no liability exists where, as here, parts of an overall enterprise were organized by another entity and the defendant’s relevant undertaking was with and for that

1965) (stating that a negligent undertaking must be “to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things”); –24 ¶¶ 14–15 (2004) (holding that, despite the absence of a doctor-patient relationship, a radiologist paid by an employer to review a job applicant’s x-rays for a pre-employment exam assumed a duty of reasonable care to protect the applicant from harm in reading her x-rays that “comports with Restatement § 324A”)

See § 13-409(1) (listing as a requirement for justification whether a reasonable person would have believed that force was immediately necessary to arrest or detain a suspect); ¶ 16 (2004) (stating that in negligence cases, “the duty is always the same[:] to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in the light of the apparent risk” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

–28 ¶ 33 (2004) (Jones, C.J., dissenting) (stating that in recognizing tort duties, we must “allow the legislature to define the public policy of the state”); Local 266, Int’l Bhd.

Stanley v. McCarver , , ¶ 5, , 851 (2004).

at 144–45 ¶ 18; ¶ 7, 223 ¶ 13 (2004) (recognizing duty by examining physician even absent formal physician- patient relationship); Ontiveros, 136 Ariz. at 508 (“The relation between individuals which imposes a legal obligation is usually a direct relationship between the plaintiff and defendant.”); cf. Alhambra Sch.

See Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 146, ¶ 18 , ; 223-24, ¶¶ 7, 15

-25, ¶ 17, -55 (2004) (explaining in case that did not involve the Act that, depending on the circumstances, doctor retained by a prospective employer may breach the standard of care by failing to disclose to prospective employee abnormalities discovered during pre-employment TB screening).

v. Reserve Life Ins., (citing Powder Horn Nursery, Inc. v. Soil & Plant Lab., Inc., -82 (App. 1978)); ¶ 16 (2004) (“The standard of care imposes on those with special skills or training, however, the higher obligation to act in light of that skill, training, or knowledge .

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965).

Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 145, ¶¶ 18, 22, 150 P.3d at 232 ( ¶¶ 7, 8, ).

that he is acting within constitutional limitations.”); ¶ 14, (finding that although a police officer is generally not responsible for road maintenance per se, when an officer opts to provide police protection he has a duty to act as would reasonably prudent officers in the same circumstances); ¶ 14, (imposing a duty even though there was no traditional doctor-patient relationship between the parties, because the doctor undertook a professional obligation with respect to the patient’s well-being

¶ 18; ¶ 12 , -22, ¶ 8 , -52 (2004) (stating “courts have imposed duties for the protection of persons with whom no preexisting ‘relationship’ existed”).

(duty may arise from special relationship between parties, based in contract, family relations, or joint undertakings).

to argue that a pre-existing or direct relationship is unnecessary to create a duty on defendants to disclose any fraud they found.

at 147, ¶ 32 , 150 P.3d at 234 (finding that the defendant owed a duty of care based on Arizona statutes that prohibit the distribution of prescription drugs to people who are not covered by the prescription); -21, 223-24, ¶¶ 2, 14-15 , -51, 853-54 (2004) (applying Restatement § 324A to find that a duty existed, despite the absence of a doctor-patient relationship, when a doctor detected abnormalities during a pre-employment tuberculosis screening and failed to notify the plaintiff, who subseque

What is required to satisfy the duty of reasonable care “depend[s] upon the facts of each case,” ¶ 16 , and whether a duty is breached is an issue of fact normally reserved for the jury.