Cited by

But it is settled that [gross negligence] is aggravated negligence.”); (noting that gross negligence is an aggravated form of negligence); see also Garibay v. Johnson ex rel.

see also Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 5; A.R.S.

-73, ¶ 20 (App. 2003) ( remanded on other grounds, (defining "reckless indifference")); Rev. Ariz. Jury Inst.

See Williams v. Thude , , 259, , 1351 (1997) (directing statutes be construed so that "[e]ach word, phrase, clause, and sentence of a statute [is] given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial") (quoting City of Phx.

The Serondes did not offer any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to conclude BNSF willfully and wantonly caused Jean and Ella harm.7 ¶29 Arizona courts group willful and wanton conduct with reckless conduct as an “aggravated form of negligence.” (“Gross negligence and wanton conduct have generally been treated as one and the same.”).

Thus, “whenever and in whatever form the [contributory negligence] defense is permitted to exist, a fact question arises that ’shall, at all times, be left to the jury.’” (emphasis added).

(recognizing that each word and phrase of a statute “must be given meaning so that no part of it will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial”).

In civil cases, however, we have “recognize[d] that the ‘fundamental error’ doctrine should be used sparingly, if at all.”

(noting court construes statutes to avoid rendering portions superfluous); (rejecting an interpretation that would render the statute in question “essentially meaningless”).

(noting court construes statutes to avoid rendering portions superfluous); (rejecting an interpretation that would render the statute in question “essentially meaningless”).

(noting we construe statutes so as to avoid rendering portions of them superfluous); , (interpreting a statute to give each word, phrase and clause meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial).

-10 , -63 (App.1989); , (" ‘fundamental error’ doctrine,” permitting lim *399 ited review of alleged errors not raised below, “should be used sparingly, if at all, in civil cases”); Bradshaw v. State Farm Mut.

See, , (courts avoid statutory construction rendering clause void, inert, redundant, or trivial).

Thus, this question is not one of proximate cause that could exonerate the defendants from liability as a matter of law but one of “the existence and application of contributory negligence,” on which the jury is “the sole arbiter.”

so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial’ ”

must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.” ( , )).

*239 Each word and phrase of the statute “must be given meaning so that no part of it will be void, inert, redundant, or trivial.”

(alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) ( , ).

so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial.” , (quotations omitted, emphasis removed).

(“Each word, phrase, clause, and sentence [of a statute] must be given meaning so that no part will be void, inert, redundant or trivial.”) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) ( , ).