Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Six Companies, Inc. v. Industrial Com., 27 P.2d 678.

22 citing documents.

Kaufman v. Langhofer 222 P.3d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-10 , -81 (1933) (damage rule for destruction of bees “must be the one ordinarily applied for the destruction of or injury to personal property,” the “true measure of [which] is the difference between the market value of the colonies at the time they were damaged and their value after they were rebuilt, together with th
Pride of San Juan, Inc. v. Pratt 212 P.3d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Accordingly, Pratt asserted the superior court was not required by S.A Ger-rard Co., , to find that the crop dusting performed by Tri-Rotor was an inherently dangerous activity.
Miller v. Westcor Ltd. Partnership 831 P.2d 386 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Fairway Builders, Inc. v. Malouf Towers Rental Co. 603 P.2d 513 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
Bible v. First National Bank of Rawlins 515 P.2d 351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Parks v. Atkinson 505 P.2d 279 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Livingston v. Citizen's Utility, Inc. 474 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
the Arizona Supreme Court delineated the landowner’s duty as to hidden defects, § 344, citing a
E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland 466 P.2d 740 Ariz. 1970
Welker v. Kennecott Copper Company, 1 Ariz.App.
German v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. 462 P.2d 108 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1969
1929), or because of the inherently dangerous nature of the activity being carried on through the independent contractor
Coury Bros. Ranches, Inc. v. Ellsworth 446 P.2d 458 Ariz. 1968
a case of destruction of bees and bee colonies.
Welker v. Kennecott Copper Company 403 P.2d 330 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1965
This can be found in the thinking of many courts, among them being our own Supreme Court in the case of S. A. Gerrard Co., 507 , [1933], where the following was said: “As a general rule the employer is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor.
Crouse v. Wilbur-Ellis Co. 272 P.2d 352 Ariz. 1954
After a complete and full investigation of the facts, Crouse and Moore and their insurance carrier became convinced that under our holding in the case of S. A. Gerrard Co., Inc., v. Fricker, , *363 , they could not escape responsibility for the destruction of their neighbor’s valuable cantaloupe crop, so they went to Schrock and made an effort to discharge the obligation.
Eaves v. Industrial Commission 237 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1951
Eaves v. Industrial Commission 237 P.2d 809 Ariz. 1951
Six Companies, Inc., v. Industrial Commission, , .
Whyte v. Industrial Commission 227 P.2d 230 Ariz. 1951
Lundberg v. Bolon 194 P.2d 454 Ariz. 1948
679 , the pertinent facts are related as follows: "The plaintiff's apiary is located near Chandler in Maricopa county, and adjacent thereto the defendant was growing 105 acres of lettuce.
Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Commission 186 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1947
Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Industrial Commission 186 P.2d 951 Ariz. 1947
* * *” , and Six Companies, Inc., v. Industrial Commission, , .
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 158 P.2d 887 Ariz. 1945
Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Industrial Commission 158 P.2d 887 Ariz. 1945
(2d) 836 ; Six Companies, , 27 Pac.
Hoffman v. Brophy 149 P.2d 160 Ariz. 1944
Hoffman v. Brophy 149 P.2d 160 Ariz. 1944
(2d) 836 ; Six Companies, Inc., v. Industrial Commission, , 27 Pac.