Cited by

¶ 9 , (“To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (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

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , 1294 (1984), ¶¶ 14-17

¶ 8 “To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (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 , (citation omitted).

143 n. 1, ¶ 9, , 230 n. 1 (2007); see Fedie v. Travelodge Int'l, Inc., , ("Although proximate cause is usually a question of fact for the jury, `the determination of facts upon which there could be no reasonable difference of opinion is in the hands of th

1 We conclude, with guidance from the Aizona Supreme Court’s , that Jiffy Lube did not owe Plaintiffs a legal duty that would permit a recovery in this case.

ed upon the plaintiff’s showing that the defendant owed a duty to him, that the duty was breached, and that the breach proximately caused an injury which resulted 4 We subsequently rejected Donnelly’s reliance on foreseeability to determine the existence of a duty of care for purposes of tort law, ¶¶ 14-15, an issue unrelated to the economic loss doctrine.

Hughes relies on Donnelly Construction Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , *869

6 *38 ¶ 19 “As a legal matter, the issue of duty involves generalizations about categories of eases.” ¶10

DISCUSSION I. Krasner’s Legal Duty ¶ 11 In order to maintain a negligence claim, “a plaintiff must prove four elements: (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 , (hereinafter, “Gipson II ”).

Company v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , 1295 (1984) (citation omitted) (allowing negligence claim against architect by contractor for purely economic damages, despite lack of contractual privity)

A ¶10 “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, This case does not involve whether a county-funded public defender’s office could be held liable for the malpractice of one of its attorneys, and we express no opinion on that subject.

¶ 21 “To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (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.”

simple negligence, gross negligence, and “dangerous condition of public property.” Establishing a claim for negligence requires a plaintiff to prove: “(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

C. ¶ 16 Lofts also argues that privity is not required for an implied warranty claim based on Donnelly Construction Co. v. *504 Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland

(duty is legal obligation requiring defendant conform to standard of conduct to protect others from unreasonable risk of harm; standard of care refers to actions defendant must take or refrain from to satisfy duty).

In a negligence action, “whether a duty exists[] is a matter of law for the court to decide.”

*438 143, ¶ 9, ( , superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Maher v. United States, 56 F.3d 1039 , 1042 n. 4 (9th Cir.1995)).