Hogue v. City of Phoenix (2016)

Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 240 Ariz. 277, 280 (App. 2 2016) (“To establish a claim of gross negligence, the plaintiff must prove, among other 3 things, the existence of a duty of care.”).

As the state correctly observes, we have previously held that the establishment of a police department does not make it a “general insurer of safety.” Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 240 Ariz. 277, ¶ 12 (App. 2016) (quoting Austin v. City of Scottsdale, 140 Ariz. 579 , 582 n.2 (1984)).

See Noriega v. Town of Miami, 243 Ariz. 320 , 327-28, ¶¶ 29, 32 (App. 2017); Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 240 Ariz. 277, 280-81, ¶ 12 (App. 2016).

“Arizona courts have 26 found that police conduct has created a special relationship giving rise to a duty only in 27 specific circumstances.” Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 378 P.3d 720, 724 (Ariz. Ct. App. 28 2016).

Doing so would improperly make the Town “‘general insurers’ for the safety of all citizens.” Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 240 Ariz. 277, 281, ¶ 13 (App. 2016). ¶13 The Town owed no duty of care to the Lebeaus because there is no special relationship between them.

Doing so would improperly make the Town “‘general insurers’ for the safety of all citizens.” Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 240 Ariz. 277, 281, ¶ 13 (App. 2016). ¶13 The Town owed no duty of care to the Lebeaus because there is no special relationship between them.

See Hogue, 240 Ariz. at 282, ¶ 18 .

See Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 240 Ariz. 277 , 281–82 ¶ 16 (App. 2016) (issues raised for the first time on appeal are untimely and deemed waived). 1.

Dist. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 174 Ariz. 336, 339 (1993); see also Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 240 Ariz. 277, 280, ¶ 9 (App. 2016) (citing Greenwood v. State, 217 Ariz. 438, 442, ¶ 14 (App. 2008)).

See Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 240 Ariz. 277, 280, ¶ 11 (App. 2016).