AZ Common Law Causes of Action NEGLIGENCE (2011)

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

NEGLIGENCE

Elements

“To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements:

(1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care;

(2) a breach by the defendant of that standard;

(3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and

(4) actual damages.”

Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 143, ¶ 9, 150 P.3d 228, 230 (2007) (citing Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 504, 667 P.2d 200, 204 (1983)).

Proof

1. Duty

“The first element, whether a duty exists, is a matter of law for the court to decide.” Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 143, ¶ 9, 150 P. 3d 228, 230 (2007).

“[A] negligence action may be maintained only if there is a duty or obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.” Markowitz v. Ariz. Parks Bd., 146 Ariz. 352, 354, 706 P.2d 364, 366 (1985), abrogated in part by A.R.S. § 33-1551.

“‘Duty’ is a question of whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff; and in negligence cases, the duty (if it exists), is always the same—to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in the light of the apparent risk.” Coburn v. City of Tucson, 143 Ariz. 50, 52, 691 P.2d 1078, 1081 (1984).

“The true test of whether an employer is liable for the act of his employee is whether at the time of the commission of the injury the employee was performing a service in furtherance of his employer’s business, not whether it was done in exact observance of the detail prescribed by the employer.” Smith v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., 179 Ariz. 131, 135, 876 P.2d 1166, 1170 (App. Div. 1, 1994).

“There is no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless: (a) a special relation exists between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person’s conduct, or (b) a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection.” Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l Inc., 162 Ariz. 263, 265, 782 P.2d 739, 741 (App. Div. 2, 1989).

“Duties of care may arise from special relationships based on contract, family relations, or conduct undertaken by the defendant. A special or direct relationship, however, is not essential in order for there to be a duty of care

…

Under Arizona common law, various categorical relationships can give rise to a duty. These include but are not limited to, the landowner-invitee relationship, the tavern owner-patron relationship, and those ‘special relationships’ recognized by § 315 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts that create a duty to control the actions of others.” Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141, 145, ¶¶ 18-19, 150 P. 3d 228, 232 (2007). See also Fedie v. Travelodge Int’l, 162 Ariz. 263, 265, 782 P.2d 739, 741 (App. Div. 2, 1989) (listing special relationships such as parent-child, master-servant, possessor of land-licensee, guardian-ward, carrier-passenger, innkeeper-guest, landlord-invitee, guardian-ward, teacher-student, and jailer-prisoner).

One who voluntarily assumes a duty to aid another may be...