Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Hamman v. County of Maricopa, 775 P.2d 1122.

32 citing documents.

Jane Doe I; Jane Doe II; And John Doe v. Lenzner Medical Services Llc... ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
Jane Doe I; Jane Doe II; And John Doe v. Lenzner Medical Services Llc... ... Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2025
SERVS., LLC Opinion of the Court ¶45 Then, in addressing the common law duty and public policy, Avitia overruled two cases: which found the existence of a common law duty based on foreseeability, which held that A.R.S.
Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. 2023
Overruled Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. 2023
Because prior judicial decisions found a duty in such circumstances based on foreseeability, we overrule those decisions.
Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Avitia v. Crisis Preparation Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
¶32 our supreme court relied on foreseeability to recognize a common law duty of psychiatrists to warn or protect: “When a psychiatrist determines, or under applicable professional standards reasonably should have determined, that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to others, the psychiatrist has a duty
Dellinger v. Basami House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Dellinger v. Basami House Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(duty arises under § 315 "[w]hen a psychiatrist determines, or under applicable professional standards reasonably should have determined, that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to others").
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 24 P.3d 593 Ariz. 2001
Paradigm Insurance v. Langerman Law Offices, P.A. 24 P.3d 593 Ariz. 2001
See, , 99-100 ¶10, , 290-91 ¶ 10 (2000) (purchaser’s real estate agent has duty to disclose purchaser’s financial difficulties to seller); -64 , -28 (1989) (psychiatrist has duty to exercise reasonable care to protect foreseeable victim of patient); Mur-Ray Mgmt.
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Ramirez v. Health Partners 972 P.2d 658 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
See, e.g., Little (holding § 36-517.02 , ); Young (holding § 4-312(B) unconstitutionally abrogates general negligence cause of action recognized in Ontiveros).
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
Napier v. Bertram 954 P.2d 1389 Ariz. 1998
See, e.g., Donnelly Const., 139 Ariz. at 187 , 677 P.2d at 1295 (contractor could bring negligence action against owner’s architect when error in plans increased contractor’s costs); -64 , -28 (1989) (psychiatrist has duty to exercise reasonable care to protect foreseeable victim of patient), superseded by A.R.S.
Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Luce v. State Title Agency, Inc. 950 P.2d 159 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
See Donnelly, 139 Ariz. at 188 , 677 P.2d at 1296 (“design professionals are liable for foreseeable injuries to foreseeable victims which proximately result from them negligent performance of their professional services”); , (holding that a psychiatrist has a duty to protect foreseeable victims from a patient’s violent behavior).
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
Little v. ALL PHOENIX S. COM. MENT. HLTH. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1996
our supreme court first addressed a mental health care provider's duty to protect others against the conduct of a patient.
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
Little v. All Phoenix South Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 919 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1995
our supreme court first addressed a mental health care provider’s duty to protect others against the conduct of a patient.
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 866 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1994
Petolicchio v. Santa Cruz County Fair & Rodeo Ass'n 866 P.2d 1342 Ariz. 1994
See, , (therapist who determined that patient posed serious threat to others had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect foreseeable victim); Hodge v. Nor-Cen Inc., 527 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind.Ct.App.
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Bogue v. Better-Bilt Aluminum Co. 875 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Ferguson v. Cash, Sullivan & Cross Insurance Agency, Inc. 831 P.2d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
Carrow Co. v. Lusby 804 P.2d 747 Ariz. 1990
Tamsen v. Weber 802 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Tamsen v. Weber 802 P.2d 1063 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
holds that a psychiatrist’s duty extends only to victims who are “reasonably foreseeable,” i.e., those whom the psychiatrist can reasonably predict might be attacked by an uncontrolled patient.
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
Arnold v. Arizona Department of Health Services 775 P.2d 521 Ariz. 1989
: John Carter was treated in the emergency clinic of the county hospital where he was taken by his concerned and frightened parents.