Cited by

3 MICHAEL v. CRESCENT HOTELS, et al. Decision of the Court Homeowners Ass’n, –11 (1997); Grafitti-Valenzuela ex rel.

Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., (A condominium association has a duty to owners, tenants, and invitees in the common areas as established by common law.).

Homeowners Ass’n, (“[F]oreseeable danger [does] not dictate the existence of duty but only the nature and extent of the conduct necessary to fulfill the duty.”), cited with approval in Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 144 ¶ 17; (stating that “the existence of a duty is not to be c

Homeowners Ass’n, (condominium association with control over common areas owed a duty “with respect to the common areas” to condo owners, tenants, and their guests).

As support for this contention, 4 SCHIAGER v. LANDMARK LAND Decision of the Court Schiager cites Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, in which the Arizona Supreme Court found the defendant homeowners’ association owed a duty of reasonable care to invitees to maintain the safety of its common areas.

2008) (to same effect); Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (stating that a “common area” is “realty that all tenants may use”); see also Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., (stating that, in the context of a condominium association, parking lots are “common areas” because all unit owners are entitled to use them).

his court previously explained, “although Arizona courts usually follow the Restatement of the Law ‘if there is no statute or case law on a particular subject,’” Ramirez, 193 Ariz. at 332, ¶ 26 (quoting Martinez v. 6 TUNE, et al. v. DONOR NETWORK Decision of the Court Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, ), “[o]ur supreme court has cautioned against [] following the Restatement in lock step fashion ‘when to do so would result in the recognition of a new cause of action in this jurisdiction,

¶69 Additionally, Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowner’s Ass’n, does not, as the dissent contends, stand for the proposition that a landowner’s duty is based on “its conduct irrespective of any duty to control [a] third party.” See infra ¶ 95.

Homeowners Ass’n, and generally will embrace the Restatement if it prescribes “a sound and sensible rule,”

And unlike Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., -09 , -21 (1997), in which the supreme court determined that a condominium complex’s homeowners association owed a duty analogous to that of a landlord to maintain the safety of common areas, and thus could be held liable for injuries suffered by a guest of a tenant who was shot in the complex’s p

Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., -08, - 20 (1997), our supreme court considered whether a condominium association owed social 7 We note that Restatement § 344 also sets forth the standard of care for a possessor of land.

Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., , (stating, “the type of foreseeable danger did not dictate the existence of duty but only the nature and extent of the conduct necessary *459 to fulfill the duty”).

hird person which imposes a duty upon the [defendant] to control the third person’s conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the [defendant] and the [plaintiff] which gives to the [plaintiff] a right of protection.’” 6 Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, -08, -20 (1997), quoting Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Ass’n, quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 (1965) (brackets added by supreme court); Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, Inc., 162

Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., (characterizing case as of “the type in which courts are tempted to blur the concepts of duty and negligence”).

o duty to control the conduct of a third party unless “ ‘(a) a special relation exists between the [defendant] and the third person which imposes a duty upon the [defendant] to control the third person’s conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the [defendant] and the [plaintiff] which gives to the [plaintiff] a right of protection.’” Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, -08 , -20 (1997), quoting Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Ass’n, , quoting Restatement (Second)

Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n

Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n

¶ 26 Second, although Arizona courts usually follow the Restatement of the Law “if there is no statute or case law on a particular subject,” Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, , we will not do so blindly.

Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.

See also Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n Inc., -09 , -21 (1997).

Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Assoc., Inc.