Cited by

See CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 251 Ariz. at 518 ¶ 25 (“Generally, a cause of action for negligence arises from a duty, a determination that a person is required to conform to a particular standard of conduct.” (emphasis added) ( ¶ 10 (2010))); see also Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 147 ¶ 32 (“We hold that Kasey did owe a duty of care based on Arizona’s statutes prohibiting the distribution of prescription drugs to persons not covered by the prescription.” (emphasis added)); ¶ 15 (App. 2018) (“By enacti

“Spoliation is the destruction or material alteration of evidence.” ¶ 1 (2010).

Interpreting “welfare” to exclude economic welfare is also consistent with the general reluctance of courts to recognize tort duties “to exercise reasonable care for the purely economic well-being of others.” ¶ 11 (2010).

In fact, in US Airways, ¶ 11 (2010), for the proposition that “[c]ourts have not recognized a general duty to exercise reasonable care for the purely economic well-being of 3 There is variation among the states, but exculpatory provisions in public utility tariffs generally disclaim or limit liability for failure to furnish ser

See Quiroz, 243 Ariz. at 573–74 ¶¶ 62–63; ¶ 14 (2010).

Section 324A reflects Arizona courts’ reluctance to recognize a “general duty to exercise reasonable care for the purely economic well-being of others, as distinguished from their physical safety or the physical safety of their property.” ¶ 11 (2010).

County of Maricopa, ¶ 45 (App. 2014); Quiroz, 243 Ariz. at 565, ¶ 14; ¶ 10 (2010) (“[T]he common law imposes a duty of reasonable care on a party who voluntarily undertakes to protect persons or property from physical harm.”); Lloyd v. State Farm Mut.

“When spoliation is committed by a party to a lawsuit, it is referred to as first-party spoliation; 10 STATE v. MACIAS Opinion of the Court when committed by a non-party, it is called third-party spoliation.” ¶ 1 (2010).

¶ 7 (2018); ¶ 7 (2015); ¶ 10 (2010)

See, e.g., Souza, 191 Ariz. at 249–50 (citing cases); -268 ¶ 8 (2010) (citing authority).

324A would not impose a duty on ELM because US Airways only suffered economic harm, not physical harm, as a result of the service interruption.6 See Gilbert Tuscany Lender, ¶ 18, (declining to apply § 324A to impose a duty because plaintiff did not suffer any physical harm); ¶ 11, (“Courts have not recognized a general duty to exercise reasonable care for the purely economic well-being of others, as distinguished from their physical safety or the physical safety of their property”) (citing Dan B

Distinguishing between duties owed in actions alleging death or personal injury and duties arising in cases involving purely economic loss is consistent with a noted judicial reluctance to recognize duties “to exercise reasonable care for the purely economic well-being of others.” ¶ 11 , cf. Gilbert Tuscany Lender, -02, ¶¶ 15-17 , -29 (App.2013) (declining to extend tort duties based on Bank Secrecy Act in case alleging economic loss).

268 ¶ 10, (citing Restatement § 323 for the proposition that “the common law imposes a duty of reasonable care on a party who voluntarily undertakes to protect persons or property from physical harm”); see also Stanley, 208 Ariz. at 223 ¶¶ 13-15, 92 P.3d at 853 (noting that our conclusion

Our supreme court has recently agreed with this proposition, reiterating that “the common law imposes a duty of reasonable care on a party who voluntarily undertakes to protect persons or property from physical harm.” ¶ 10 , (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965)).