In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Defective and unreasonably dangerous" does not include a food product that is otherwise fit for human consumption and nourishment.
2. "Food product" means any product that is grown, prepared, provided, served or sold and that is primarily intended for human consumption and nourishment.
3. "Manufacturer" means a person or entity that designs, assembles, fabricates, produces, constructs or otherwise prepares a product or component part of a product before its sale to a user or consumer, including a seller owned in whole or significant part by the manufacturer or a seller owning the manufacturer in whole or significant part.
4. "Product" means the individual product or any component part of the product that is the subject of a product liability action.
5. "Product liability action" means any action brought against a manufacturer or seller of a product for damages for bodily injury, death or property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formula, installation, preparation, assembly, testing, packaging, labeling, sale, use or consumption of any product, the failure to warn or protect against a danger or hazard in the use or misuse of the product or the failure to provide proper instructions for the use or consumption of any product.
6. "Product safety analysis or review" means any investigation, inquiry, review, evaluation or other means by which a person or entity seeks to determine, calculate, predict, estimate, evaluate or report the safety or health effects of the use of any of its products, systems, services or processes. Product safety analysis or review includes an analysis or review by a component manufacturer of the safety and health effects of component parts in end products. A product safety analysis or review may be conducted by employees of the person or entity or by consultants engaged specifically to perform the analysis or review.
7. "Reasonable remedial measures" means actions taken as a result of a product safety analysis or review and intended to improve the safety of products, systems, services or processes or to lessen the likelihood of a safety-related accident. These actions include:
(a) Modifications to the product, system, service or process.
(b) Changes in quality assurance procedures or policies.
(c) Modifications made to the design or method of manufacturing, to manufacturing equipment or to the testing of the product, system, service or process.
(d) Changes or additions to training programs or safety education programs.
(e) Personnel or human resources measures related to the product, system, service or process.
(f) The use or modification of warnings, notices or changes to owner manuals and related materials.
(g) The recall of products.
8. "Reasonably foreseeable alteration, modification, use or consumption" means an alteration, modification, use or consumption of the product that would be expected of an ordinary and prudent purchaser, user or consumer and that an ordinary and prudent manufacturer should have anticipated.
9. "Seller" means a person or entity, including a wholesaler, distributor, retailer or lessor, that is engaged in the business of leasing any product or selling any product for resale, use or consumption.
10. "State of the art" means the technical, mechanical and scientific knowledge of manufacturing, designing, testing or labeling the same or similar products that was in existence and reasonably feasible for use at the time of manufacture.
Notes of Decisions
Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 786 P.2d 939 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 8× “Because the liability question posited in Torres II also takes cognizance of Arizona statutes dealing with products liability, we turn next to an analysis of those statutes and their effect on this case. PRODUCT LIABILITY UNDER ARIZONA STATUTE In 1978, our legislature adopted a…”
Antone v. Greater Arizona Auto Auction, Inc., 155 P.3d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “” The court concluded “GAAA did not possess the requisite indicia to be classified a ‘seller’ as contemplated by A.R.S. § 12-681.” For the reasons stated below, we agree.”
Unique Equip. Co. v. TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc., 3 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 10× “) Section 12-681 defines “seller” as “a person or entity, including a wholesaler, distributor, retailer or lessor, engaged in the business of leasing any product or selling any product for resale, use or consumption.”
Golonka v. Gen. Motors Corp., 65 P.3d 956 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 12-681(8) (Supp.2002). ¶ 63 The trial court found that § 12-683(1) applied to allow GM to defend against the failure-to-warn/information defect claims by arguing that its active warning system (i.”
Bridgestone/Firestone North Am. Tire, L.L.C. v. A.P.S. Rent-A-Car & Leasing, Inc., 88 P.3d 572 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Noting that Arizona’s product liability statutes included a broad definition of “manufacturer,” see A.R.S. § 12-681(1), our supreme court determined that under Arizona law a trademark licensor may be held liable where a licensee marketed the defective, unreasonably dangerous…”
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Coop., 778 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1989).
· cites it 16× “Then, some two years after Drew filed the complaint, United moved to dismiss, arguing that the action was a products liability claim as defined in A.R.S. § 12-681, 2 and thus barred by the two-year statute of limitations of A.”
Anson v. Am. Motors Corp., 747 P.2d 581 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “§ 12-551, and provides, with a certain inapplicable exception, that a “product liability action as defined in § 12-681 shall be commenced and prosecuted within the period prescribed in § 12-542.”
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co., 868 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 8× “" See A.R.S. §§ 12-681 -686. The legislative goal behind the products liability statutes was apparently to address the "perceived crisis of rising products liability insurance rates" and to promote new product development by regulating products liability law.”
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, 719 P.2d 1058 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-681(3) provides: “Product liability action” means any action brought against a manufacturer or seller of a product for damages for bodily injury, death or property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formula, installation,…”
Grubb v. Do It Best Corp., 279 P.3d 626 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 5× “” ¶ 5 Subject to statutory exceptions not relevant here, see A.R.S. § 12-681, sellers may be held strictly liable for harm caused by defective and unreasonably dangerous products they have sold, Antone v.”
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 904 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Section 12-2509(B) provides: If an action involves claims for relief alleging both negligence and strict liability in tort, and if § 12-2505 [comparative negligence] is applied with respect to the negligence claims for relief, the reduction in damages under § 12-2505 shall be…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(1) — 7 cases
Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 786 P.2d 939 (Ariz. 1990).
“Because the liability question posited in Torres II also takes cognizance of Arizona statutes dealing with products liability, we turn next to an analysis of those statutes and their effect on this case. PRODUCT LIABILITY UNDER ARIZONA STATUTE In 1978, our legislature adopted a…”
Unique Equip. Co. v. TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc., 3 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“) Section 12-681 defines “seller” as “a person or entity, including a wholesaler, distributor, retailer or lessor, engaged in the business of leasing any product or selling any product for resale, use or consumption.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(10) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(3) — 11 cases
Readenour v. Marion Power Shovel, 719 P.2d 1058 (Ariz. 1986).
“A.R.S. § 12-681(3) provides: “Product liability action” means any action brought against a manufacturer or seller of a product for damages for bodily injury, death or property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formula, installation,…”
Anson v. Am. Motors Corp., 747 P.2d 581 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
“§ 12-551, and provides, with a certain inapplicable exception, that a “product liability action as defined in § 12-681 shall be commenced and prosecuted within the period prescribed in § 12-542.”
Drew v. United Producers & Consumers Coop., 778 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1989).
“Then, some two years after Drew filed the complaint, United moved to dismiss, arguing that the action was a products liability claim as defined in A.R.S. § 12-681, 2 and thus barred by the two-year statute of limitations of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(4) — 3 cases
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co., 868 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
“" See A.R.S. §§ 12-681 -686. The legislative goal behind the products liability statutes was apparently to address the "perceived crisis of rising products liability insurance rates" and to promote new product development by regulating products liability law.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(5) — 6 cases
Antone v. Greater Arizona Auto Auction, Inc., 155 P.3d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“” The court concluded “GAAA did not possess the requisite indicia to be classified a ‘seller’ as contemplated by A.R.S. § 12-681.” For the reasons stated below, we agree.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(6) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(7) — 4 cases
Unique Equip. Co. v. TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc., 3 P.3d 970 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“) Section 12-681 defines “seller” as “a person or entity, including a wholesaler, distributor, retailer or lessor, engaged in the business of leasing any product or selling any product for resale, use or consumption.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(8) — 4 cases
Golonka v. Gen. Motors Corp., 65 P.3d 956 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“” A.R.S. § 12-681(8) (Supp.2002). ¶ 63 The trial court found that § 12-683(1) applied to allow GM to defend against the failure-to-warn/information defect claims by arguing that its active warning system (i.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-681(9) — 5 cases
Antone v. Greater Arizona Auto Auction, Inc., 155 P.3d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“” The court concluded “GAAA did not possess the requisite indicia to be classified a ‘seller’ as contemplated by A.R.S. § 12-681.” For the reasons stated below, we agree.”
Grubb v. Do It Best Corp., 279 P.3d 626 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“” ¶ 5 Subject to statutory exceptions not relevant here, see A.R.S. § 12-681, sellers may be held strictly liable for harm caused by defective and unreasonably dangerous products they have sold, Antone v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.