Cited by

¶ 8 (1998) (noting that “loss of consortium is a derivative claim” and thus its existence depends upon successfully proving the elements of an underlying claim).

¶ 8 (1998) (“[B]ecause loss of consortium is a derivative claim, all elements of the underlying claim must be proven before the claim can exist.” (internal citation omitted)).

defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” ¶ 9 (2007); see also McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., ¶ 22 (App. 2013) (explaining a plaintiff must put forward evidence establishing all the elements of actionable negligence to survive a motion for summary judgment on a premises liability claim); (“[B]ecause loss of consortium is a derivative claim, all elements of the underlying cause must be proven before the claim can exist.”) (citation omitted).

( aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, ).

–86, ¶ 8 (1998) (derivative claim for loss of consortium necessarily requires proof of each of the elements of the underlying cause of action).

See, ¶ 8 (1998) (“[B]ecause loss of consortium is a derivative claim, all elements of the underlying cause must be proven before the claim can exist.”).

(damages for loss of consortium is to compensate for loss of love, affection, protection, support, services, companionship, care, society, and in marital relationship, sexual relations).

d (1965) (“[T]he requirements of administrative regulations are not adopted by the court as defining a definite standard of conduct in negligence actions, but are accepted as affording relevant evidence.”); , (recognizing that Arizona courts generally follow the Restatement absent statutes or case law to the contrary, but will not do so blindly).

We will not overturn a jury verdict on the basis of an improper instruction “unless there is substantial doubt whether the jury was properly guided in its deliberations.” , aff'd in part and rev’d in part on other grounds

¶ 6 , (“We are not bound by the Restatement____Moreover, although we generally follow the Restatement absent statutes or case law to the contrary, we will not do so blindly.”); , (“we do not follow the Restatement blindly”)

aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds

-86, ¶ 8 , -87 (1998) (derivative claim for loss of consortium necessarily requires proof of each of the elements of the underlying cause of action).

(“[A]l-though we generally follow the Restatement absent statutes or ease law to the contrary, we will not do so blindly.”) The suppression order at issue was based on the premise that a medical assistant could not be a “qualified person” under A.R.S.

And “we generally follow the Restatement absent statutes or case law to the contrary.”

3020 , 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979); , vacated in part on other grounds

“[Ajlthough we generally follow the Restatement absent statutes or cases to the contrary, we will not do so blindly.” , , (recognizing child’s consortium claim despite Restatement rule that does not); infra ¶24 (reflecting Arizona’s rejection of the Restatement view limiting respondeat superior liability for puniti