7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2005 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Heimke v. Munozgreen2 sentences2005See Ariz. Const, art. 18, §§ 4, 5; Heimke v. Munoz, 106 Ariz. 26, 28-30 , 470 P.2d 107, 109-11 (1970). ¶ 12 Although Article 18, Sections 4 and 5 restricted employers’ common law defenses to employee negligence actions, neither section affected the basic requirement that the employee prove negligence and causation, an often long and expensive process for both employees and employers. 2005See Ariz. Const, art. 18, §§ 4, 5; Heimke v. Munoz, 106 Ariz. 26, 28-30 , 470 P.2d 107, 109-11 (1970). ¶ 12 Although Article 18, Sections 4 and 5 restricted employers’ common law defenses to employee negligence actions, neither section affected the basic requirement that the employee prove negligence and causation, an often long and expensive process for both employees and employers. | 2 | 2 |
Red Rover Copper Co. v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences2005Prosser, Law of Torts § 80, at 526-27 (4th ed.1971); see also Red Rover, 58 Ariz. at 210 , 118 P.2d at 1105 . ¶ 11 “For twenty-five years, labor interests had unsuccessfully lobbied for an employer’s liability act in the territorial legislature.” Gordon M. 2005Prosser, Law of Torts § 80, at 526-27 (4th ed.1971); see also Red Rover, 58 Ariz. at 210 , 118 P.2d at 1105 . ¶ 11 “For twenty-five years, labor interests had unsuccessfully lobbied for an employer’s liability act in the territorial legislature.” Gordon M. | 2 | 2 |
Kilpatrick v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2004See Kilpatrick v. Superior Court, 105 Ariz. 413, 416 , 466 P.2d 18, 21 (1970)(Article 18 is “designed to protect the rights of the laboring class from the evils which over the preceding century had eroded rights believed necessary to do justice between workmen and their employers.”); see also The Records of the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910 [hereinafter “Records of 1910 ”] 72-73, 1227-28 (John Goff, ed.)(Article 18, section 5 was introduced as Proposition 88, § 2 to limit the defenses of “fellow-servant” and “assumption of risk” in actions for injury or death related to hazardous o 2004See Kilpatrick v. Superior Court, 105 Ariz. 413, 416 , 466 P.2d 18, 21 (1970)(Article 18 is “designed to protect the rights of the laboring class from the evils which over the preceding century had eroded rights believed necessary to do justice between workmen and their employers.”); see also The Records of the Arizona Constitutional Convention of 1910 [hereinafter “Records of 1910 ”] 72-73, 1227-28 (John Goff, ed.)(Article 18, section 5 was introduced as Proposition 88, § 2 to limit the defenses of “fellow-servant” and “assumption of risk” in actions for injury or death related to hazardous o | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kenyon v. Hammer
green
2 sentences1988Id. 1988Id. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGuire
green
2 sentences1980In Chicago B & Q Railroad Company v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549 , 31 S.Ct. 259 , 55 L.Ed. 328 (1910), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 207 of the Code of Iowa which eliminated the fellow-servant rule and established liability for damages for negligence as well as that “. .. no contract which restricts such liability shall be legal or binding.” The Court stated: “In the cases within its purview it extended the liability of the common law by abolishing the fellow-servant rule. 1980In Chicago B & Q Railroad Company v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549 , 31 S.Ct. 259 , 55 L.Ed. 328 (1910), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sec. 207 of the Code of Iowa which eliminated the fellow-servant rule and established liability for damages for negligence as well as that “. .. no contract which restricts such liability shall be legal or binding.” The Court stated: “In the cases within its purview it extended the liability of the common law by abolishing the fellow-servant rule. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Industrial Commission v. Crisman
green
2 sentences1970Justice McAlister, concurring in Industrial Commission of Arizona v. Crisman, noted the benevolent purposes of Article 18: “Up to the end of territorial government in Arizona, a recovery for personal injury resulting in death was limited to $5,000, and the cause of action therefor was subject to all the defenses of the fellow-servant rule, assumed risk and contributory negligence, but with the adoption of the constitution, which removed the limitation of recovery, abrogated forever the fellow-servant doctrine, made assumed risk and contributory negligence questions of fact for the jury to deci 1970Justice McAlister, concurring in Industrial Commission of Arizona v. Crisman, noted the benevolent purposes of Article 18: “Up to the end of territorial government in Arizona, a recovery for personal injury resulting in death was limited to $5,000, and the cause of action therefor was subject to all the defenses of the fellow-servant rule, assumed risk and contributory negligence, but with the adoption of the constitution, which removed the limitation of recovery, abrogated forever the fellow-servant doctrine, made assumed risk and contributory negligence questions of fact for the jury to deci | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Feffer v. Bowman
green
2 sentences1962This is readily gleaned from the cases, e.g., in Feffer v. Bowman, 90 Ariz. 48 , 365 P.2d 472, 474 , we find the following: "A plaintiff in a common law negligence action against his employer enjoys by virtue of this state's constitution freedom from the strictures of the fellow servant doctrine and the assurance that the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk shall in all cases be jury questions. 1962This is readily gleaned from the cases, e.g., in Feffer v. Bowman, 90 Ariz. 48 , 365 P.2d 472, 474 , we find the following: "A plaintiff in a common law negligence action against his employer enjoys by virtue of this state's constitution freedom from the strictures of the fellow servant doctrine and the assurance that the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk shall in all cases be jury questions. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.