no-duty rule in Arizona

2022“This is a rational solution for limiting ski area operators’ liability and promoting safety.” Grieb v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc., 400 N.W.2d 653, 656 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986); see also Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 146, ¶ 29 (“When a court or legislature adopts a no-duty rule, it generally does so based on concerns that potential liability would chill socially desirable conduct or otherwise have adverse effects.”). ¶25 When an injury does not arise out of a risk inherent to skiing, common-law negligence principles apply, including a duty of care owed to business invitees.

2015“When a court or legislature adopts a no-duty rule, it generally does so based on concerns that potential liability would chill socially desirable conduct or otherwise have adverse effects.” Id. at 146 ¶ 29, 150 P.3d at 233 .

2014See Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 146, ¶ 29 , 150 P.3d at 233 (“When a court or legislature adopts a no-duty rule, it generally does so based on concerns that potential liability would chill socially desirable conduct or otherwise have adverse effects.”); Stanley, 208 Ariz. at 225, ¶ 20 , 92 P.3d at 855 (considering whether the imposition of a duty on a physician to a non-patient would “ ‘chill’ doctors from doing pre-employment exams and open the floodgates of litigation”); Ontiveros v. Borah, 136 Ariz. 500, 512 , 667 P.2d 200, 212 (1983) (stating that in some situations “the public interest ... requi

2014See Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 146, ¶ 29 , 150 P.3d at 233 (“When a court or legislature adopts a no-duty rule, it generally does so based on concerns that potential liability would chill socially desirable conduct or otherwise have adverse effects.”); Stanley, 208 Ariz. at 225, ¶ 20 , 92 P.3d at 855 (considering whether the imposition of a duty on a physician to a non-patient would “ ‘chill’ doctors from doing pre-employment exams and open the floodgates of litigation”); Ontiveros v. Borah, 136 Ariz. 500, 512 , 667 P.2d 200, 212 (1983) (stating that in some situations “the public interest ... requi

2015Thus, our endorsement of the doctrine rejects the notion that socially desirable undertakings should, merely by virtue of their public benefit, be immunized from liability. ¶ 46 Because our law strongly disfavors categorical tort immunity, see Ontiveros, 136 Ariz. at 512 , 667 P.2d at 212 , and the interests in deterrence and compensation have particular force with respect to negligent notifications of the death of a child or other loved one, a no-duty rule is simply not appropriate here.

2015Thus, our endorsement of the doctrine rejects the notion that socially desirable undertakings should, merely by virtue of their public benefit, be immunized from liability. ¶ 46 Because our law strongly disfavors categorical tort immunity, see Ontiveros, 136 Ariz. at 512 , 667 P.2d at 212 , and the interests in deterrence and compensation have particular force with respect to negligent notifications of the death of a child or other loved one, a no-duty rule is simply not appropriate here.

2026See Guerra v. State, 237 Ariz. 183 , 187 ¶ 20 (2015) (“When a court or legislature adopts a no-duty rule, it generally does so based on concerns that potential liability would chill socially desirable conduct . . . .”).

2017Although public policy may support the adoption of a no-duty rule in some circumstances, see Guerra v. State, 237 Ariz. 183 , 187 ¶ 20, 348 P.3d 423 (2015), we decline to adopt a rule that patients categorically owe no duty of care to those who provide caregiver services.

2022“This is a rational solution for limiting ski area operators’ liability and promoting safety.” Grieb v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc., 400 N.W.2d 653, 656 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986); see also Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 146, ¶ 29 (“When a court or legislature adopts a no-duty rule, it generally does so based on concerns that potential liability would chill socially desirable conduct or otherwise have adverse effects.”). ¶25 When an injury does not arise out of a risk inherent to skiing, common-law negligence principles apply, including a duty of care owed to business invitees.

2022See Horvath, 979 N.E.2d at 1251 .

2015Cf. Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 146 ¶ 29, 150 P.3d at 233 (noting that the no-duty rule for social hosts is justified by concerns that “[h]olding social hosts liable for harm caused by guests to whom they serve alcohol might curb desirable social exchanges”); Wertheim v. Pima County, 211 Ariz. 422 , 427 ¶ 20, 122 P.3d 1, 6 (App.2005) (noting that “[c]ourts traditionally fix the duty point by balancing factors,” among them “the proliferation of claims,” and “public policies affecting the expansion or limitation of new channels of liability”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Murillo v.

2015Cf. Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 146 ¶ 29, 150 P.3d at 233 (noting that the no-duty rule for social hosts is justified by concerns that “[h]olding social hosts liable for harm caused by guests to whom they serve alcohol might curb desirable social exchanges”); Wertheim v. Pima County, 211 Ariz. 422 , 427 ¶ 20, 122 P.3d 1, 6 (App.2005) (noting that “[c]ourts traditionally fix the duty point by balancing factors,” among them “the proliferation of claims,” and “public policies affecting the expansion or limitation of new channels of liability”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Murillo v.

2015Cf. Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 146 ¶ 29, 150 P.3d at 233 (noting that the no-duty rule for social hosts is justified by concerns that “[h]olding social hosts liable for harm caused by guests to whom they serve alcohol might curb desirable social exchanges”); Wertheim v. Pima County, 211 Ariz. 422 , 427 ¶ 20, 122 P.3d 1, 6 (App.2005) (noting that “[c]ourts traditionally fix the duty point by balancing factors,” among them “the proliferation of claims,” and “public policies affecting the expansion or limitation of new channels of liability”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Murillo v.

2015Cf. Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 146 ¶ 29, 150 P.3d at 233 (noting that the no-duty rule for social hosts is justified by concerns that “[h]olding social hosts liable for harm caused by guests to whom they serve alcohol might curb desirable social exchanges”); Wertheim v. Pima County, 211 Ariz. 422 , 427 ¶ 20, 122 P.3d 1, 6 (App.2005) (noting that “[c]ourts traditionally fix the duty point by balancing factors,” among them “the proliferation of claims,” and “public policies affecting the expansion or limitation of new channels of liability”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Murillo v.

1997See Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 , 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696, 706 (1992) (assumption of risk frames the duty of care owed by a participant in a sporting event); Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432 , 510 N.Y.S.2d 49 , 502 N.E.2d 964, 968 (1986) (assumption of risk is a measure of a fellow participant's duty of care).

1997See Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 , 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696, 706 (1992) (assumption of risk frames the duty of care owed by a participant in a sporting event); Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432 , 510 N.Y.S.2d 49 , 502 N.E.2d 964, 968 (1986) (assumption of risk is a measure of a fellow participant's duty of care).

1997Id.

1997See Schwab, 164 Ariz. at 424 , 793 P.2d at 1091 . [2] This does not mean, however, that we are constitutionally obliged to send this case forward to a jury.

1997See Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 , 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696, 706 (1992) (assumption of risk frames the duty of care owed by a participant in a sporting event); Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432 , 510 N.Y.S.2d 49 , 502 N.E.2d 964, 968 (1986) (assumption of risk is a measure of a fellow participant's duty of care).

1997See Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal.4th 296 , 11 Cal. Rptr.2d 2 , 834 P.2d 696, 706 (1992) (assumption of risk frames the duty of care owed by a participant in a sporting event); Turcotte v. Fell, 68 N.Y.2d 432 , 510 N.Y.S.2d 49 , 502 N.E.2d 964, 968 (1986) (assumption of risk is a measure of a fellow participant's duty of care).