Cited by

¶¶ 15-17 (2007) (explaining that “[w]hether an injury to a particular plaintiff was foreseeable by a particular defendant necessarily involves an inquiry into the specific facts of an individual case” and considerations of foreseeability are limited “to the factual determinations of breach and causation”).

While Arizona recognizes that duties may arise from contractual undertakings, ¶ 18 (2007), Plaintiff does not point to any here.

See, e.g., Gipson 11 JOHNSON v. STATE, -44, ¶ 11 (2007).

See id.; Diggs v. Arizona Cardiologists, Ltd.

Castle Rock filed an Answering Brief but the Market did not.

Although we generally determine duty “before the case-specific facts are considered,” ¶ 21 (2007) (emphasis omitted), we must consider them for the limited purpose 6 PUSD 210 V. HON.

¶50 “Duty is defined as an ‘obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.’” ¶ 10 (2007) ().

Under Arizona law, however, certain “special relationships” can create a duty in regard to “the actions of another.” ¶¶ 18-19 (2007).

¶13 Notably, in deciding whether we could reach our decision as a matter of law, ¶ 21 (2007), which stated that the existence of duty “is a legal matter to be determined before the case-specific facts are considered.” See Dinsmoor, 251 Ariz. at 376 ¶ 26.

().3 Duty is “for the court to decide” as a threshold 3Our supreme court clarified Gipson’s

¶24 Causation is a necessary element of both strict products liability claims, see Dillon, 202 Ariz. at 172 ¶ 14, and negligence claims, ¶ 9 (2007).

¶11 A plaintiff must prove four elements to prevail on an ordinary negligence claim: “(1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” ¶ 9 (2007).

Inc. v. Edais Eng’g Inc., ¶ 5 (2022) ( ¶ 9 (2007)).

¶12 The elements of a negligence claim are: “(1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” ¶ 9 (2007).

¶ 16 (2007) (“[F]oreseeability often determines whether a defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances or proximately caused injury to a particular plaintiff.”).