A. Except as provided in section 40-360.22, subsection M, a person who violates any provision of this article is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars to be imposed by the court in favor of the state. Any penalties received by the state shall be deposited in the state general fund.
B. If a violation of this article results in damage to an underground facility, the violator is liable to all affected underground facilities operators and excavators for all resulting damages proximately caused by the violations, including economic loss.
C. If a person violates this article by failing to provide timely notice as required by this article, by failing to respond in the time and manner provided by this article or by failing to locate and mark an underground facility in the manner provided by this article, the person is liable to all affected underground facilities operators and excavators for all damages proximately caused by the violation, including economic loss.
D. Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of section 40-360.22, subsection D or subsection L, paragraph 3 is a superseding event that breaks the chain of causation for any damages that could result from an underground facilities operator's failure to accurately locate or mark an underground facility.
E. If a landlord or an excavator complies with the duties set forth in sections 40-360.22, 40-360.30 and 40-360.32 for all facilities operated by a landlord as provided in section 40-360.22, subsection P, paragraph 1, the person is not liable for any death or injury to persons or property or for any economic loss to any person to the extent the conduct is regulated by this article. This section does not excuse any landlord or excavator from liability for any death or injury to persons or property or for any economic loss to any person to the extent the injury or loss does not arise from the conduct regulated by this article.
F. This section is not applicable to an excavation made:
1. During an emergency which involves danger to life, health or property if reasonable precautions are taken to protect underground facilities.
2. In agricultural operations or for the purpose of finding or extracting natural resources.
3. With hand tools on property owned or occupied by the person performing the excavation while gardening or tilling such property.
Notes of Decisions
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 46 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2002).
· cites it 10× “Pointing out that APS was liable “to the injured party” under A.R.S. § 40-360.28(0) for failing to correctly locate its lines and that Gunnell was liable to the owner and third parties under subsection B of the same statute, the dissent noted that “neither subsection purports to…”
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 18 P.3d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 48× “As the majority interprets § 40-360.28, an owner violator escapes any responsibility and a non-owner violator is wholly responsible when the violations of each contribute to the harm.”
US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 361 P.3d 942 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Qwest does not dispute that the statute imposes an affirmative obligation to locate and mark its facilities, but argues that it did not owe a duty to US Always because the Blue Stake Law authorizes a civil action for damages in favor of only utilities and excavators.”
Sprint Commc'ns Co. LP v. FNF Constr. Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 2× “26(A); then citing A.R.S. § 40-360.28(B)). 9 Defendant FNF acknowledges that Plaintiff’s negligence claim is not time-barred; 10 however, asserts that Plaintiff is still “seeking to impose statutory liability onto FNF but is 11 styling it as negligence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.28(0) — 2 cases
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 46 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2002).
“Pointing out that APS was liable “to the injured party” under A.R.S. § 40-360.28(0) for failing to correctly locate its lines and that Gunnell was liable to the owner and third parties under subsection B of the same statute, the dissent noted that “neither subsection purports to…”
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 18 P.3d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“As the majority interprets § 40-360.28, an owner violator escapes any responsibility and a non-owner violator is wholly responsible when the violations of each contribute to the harm.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.28(13) — 1 case
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 46 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2002).
“Pointing out that APS was liable “to the injured party” under A.R.S. § 40-360.28(0) for failing to correctly locate its lines and that Gunnell was liable to the owner and third parties under subsection B of the same statute, the dissent noted that “neither subsection purports to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.28(A) — 1 case
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 18 P.3d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“As the majority interprets § 40-360.28, an owner violator escapes any responsibility and a non-owner violator is wholly responsible when the violations of each contribute to the harm.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.28(B) — 4 cases
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 46 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2002).
“Pointing out that APS was liable “to the injured party” under A.R.S. § 40-360.28(0) for failing to correctly locate its lines and that Gunnell was liable to the owner and third parties under subsection B of the same statute, the dissent noted that “neither subsection purports to…”
US Airways, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 361 P.3d 942 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“Qwest does not dispute that the statute imposes an affirmative obligation to locate and mark its facilities, but argues that it did not owe a duty to US Always because the Blue Stake Law authorizes a civil action for damages in favor of only utilities and excavators.”
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 18 P.3d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“As the majority interprets § 40-360.28, an owner violator escapes any responsibility and a non-owner violator is wholly responsible when the violations of each contribute to the harm.”
Sprint Commc'ns Co. LP v. FNF Constr. Inc. (D. Ariz. 2019).
“26(A); then citing A.R.S. § 40-360.28(B)). 9 Defendant FNF acknowledges that Plaintiff’s negligence claim is not time-barred; 10 however, asserts that Plaintiff is still “seeking to impose statutory liability onto FNF but is 11 styling it as negligence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 40-360.28(C) — 2 cases
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 46 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2002).
“Pointing out that APS was liable “to the injured party” under A.R.S. § 40-360.28(0) for failing to correctly locate its lines and that Gunnell was liable to the owner and third parties under subsection B of the same statute, the dissent noted that “neither subsection purports to…”
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 18 P.3d 176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“As the majority interprets § 40-360.28, an owner violator escapes any responsibility and a non-owner violator is wholly responsible when the violations of each contribute to the harm.”
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.