Justia Arizona Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A patient with a history of aortic valve replacement visited an urgent care facility with symptoms including fever, headache, and chills. The urgent care doctor suspected bacterial endocarditis, a potentially fatal infection, and referred the patient to the emergency department at a hospital, providing a note and calling ahead. At the emergency department, the attending physician reviewed the note but dismissed the suspicion of endocarditis, diagnosing the patient with a viral syndrome and discharging him. The patient later saw his primary care provider, who also suspected endocarditis, but he died two days later. An autopsy confirmed death from complications of sepsis due to acute bacterial endocarditis. The patient’s family filed a wrongful death lawsuit, alleging that the hospital and emergency physician’s failure to diagnose and treat endocarditis caused his death.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the plaintiff’s expert testimony did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required by Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-572 for emergency department malpractice claims. The court reasoned that the experts did not state causation to a high degree of medical probability. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the expert opinions were insufficient to meet the heightened standard and that summary judgment was appropriate.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reversed and remanded. It held that the clear and convincing evidence standard in § 12-572 is a standard of proof, not a prima facie element of the claim. The Court clarified that a plaintiff’s expert testimony that negligence “likely” caused the injury is sufficient to establish causation for purposes of surviving summary judgment. The factfinder must consider all relevant, admissible evidence—not just expert testimony—when determining whether causation has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. The Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and remanded for further proceedings. View "HENKE v. HOSPITAL" on Justia Law

Robin Roebuck, who had previously undergone a heart transplant, was hospitalized at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona in April 2020 for COVID-19. During his stay, an arterial blood gas test was performed as part of his treatment, which led to complications requiring surgery and resulting in significant scarring and reduced function in his right arm and hand. In January 2021, Roebuck filed a medical negligence lawsuit against the Mayo Clinic and two of its medical professionals, alleging that the test was negligently performed. He did not claim gross negligence.The Superior Court of Maricopa County initially denied Mayo Clinic’s motion to dismiss, finding that Roebuck had sufficiently alleged the test was part of his heart treatment rather than COVID-19 care. After discovery, the court determined the test was related to COVID-19 treatment and granted summary judgment for Mayo Clinic, holding that Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-516 provided immunity from ordinary negligence claims during the pandemic, requiring proof of gross negligence or willful misconduct instead. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that § 12-516’s bar on ordinary negligence claims for pandemic-related medical care violated the Arizona Constitution’s anti-abrogation clause.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and held that § 12-516(A) unconstitutionally abrogates the right to recover damages for injuries caused by ordinary negligence by health care providers during a public health emergency. The Court found that gross negligence is not a reasonable alternative to ordinary negligence and that the statute’s limitation impermissibly abolishes a protected right of action. The Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, while vacating part of the court of appeals’ reasoning and replacing it with its own. View "ROEBUCK v MAYO CLINIC" on Justia Law

Roy McAlister invented and patented technologies related to clean fuels and incorporated McAlister Technologies, L.L.C. (MT) to hold and license these patents. In 2009, MT entered into a licensing agreement with Advanced Green Technologies, L.L.C. (AGT), which later retained Loeb & Loeb, L.L.P. for patent matters. Conflicts arose, leading McAlister to terminate the agreement, alleging AGT's breach. McAlister and MT claimed that Loeb & Loeb's actions clouded their patents, causing prospective licensees to back out, resulting in lost profits.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment in favor of Loeb & Loeb on the lost profit damages, finding the plaintiffs' evidence speculative and lacking reasonable certainty. The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert testimony on damages and ruled against them on claims for trespass to chattel, slander of title, and aiding and abetting, but allowed claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent supervision to proceed. Plaintiffs conceded no triable damages remained and stipulated to final judgment against them.The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the exclusion of the expert testimony and the summary judgment on most lost profit claims but reversed on a $5 million initial payment claim, remanding for further proceedings. It also reversed the summary judgment on trespass to chattel and slander of title claims.The Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the lost profit damages and trespass to chattel claim. It concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove the lost profit damages with reasonable certainty, as material terms of the prospective licensing agreement were unresolved. Consequently, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Loeb & Loeb on the lost profit damages and trespass to chattel claim, vacating the relevant parts of the Court of Appeals' decision. The case was remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings on the slander of title claim. View "McAlister v. Loeb" on Justia Law

Fourteen-year-old Christopher "CJ" Lucero was hit by a car and severely injured while jaywalking across a city-owned street to enter his high school campus. The accident occurred near Betty H. Fairfax High School (BFHS) in Phoenix, which is part of the Phoenix Union High School District No. 210. On the day of the accident, there were no crosswalks, school zone speed limit or warning signs, or traffic lights near the school. CJ attempted to cross the street from a vacant dirt lot opposite the school, which was commonly used by parents to drop off students, although the school did not endorse this practice.CJ, through his father, sued the District for negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability. The Superior Court of Maricopa County denied the District's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the District was aware of the jaywalking and the associated risks but did nothing to mitigate them. The court of appeals also denied the District's petition for special action relief.The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case and held that the school did not owe CJ a duty of care as he crossed the street. The court reasoned that the risk of harm did not arise within the school-student relationship because CJ was not under the school's custody and control at the time of the accident. The court emphasized that the school did not own or control the street or the dirt lot and had no authority to install safety features. The court concluded that the general rule is that a school has no duty to protect students from hazards encountered while traveling to or from school. Consequently, the court vacated the court of appeals' decision and reversed the trial court's order, instructing the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of the District. View "Phoenix Union High School District No. 210. v. Sinclair" on Justia Law

In April 2021, David Browne visited Billy Jack’s Saloon and Grill in Dewey-Humboldt, Arizona. After leaving the bar, Browne, with a blood alcohol content nearly four times the legal limit, caused a multi-vehicle collision on State Route 69. Victor Sanchez-Ravuelta, Janette Dodge, and their two minor children, Elijah and Amelia, were injured in the crash. The plaintiffs alleged that the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control (the Department) was negligent in failing to prevent Billy Jack’s from overserving its patrons.The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona, the Town of Dewey-Humboldt, and Yavapai County. The Superior Court in Maricopa County dismissed the claims against all defendants. The court found that the plaintiffs’ notice of claim to the County and Town was insufficient and that the Department did not have a legal duty to protect the plaintiffs from the harm caused by Browne’s actions. The court dismissed the minor plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice and the adult plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.The Arizona Court of Appeals held that the Department owed a statute-based duty of care to the plaintiffs. However, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the Department did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs. The court found that the statutes cited by the plaintiffs did not impose a mandatory duty on the Department to prevent the overserving of patrons. The Supreme Court vacated parts of the Court of Appeals' opinion and affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of the adult plaintiffs’ claims against the State with prejudice. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider the Town’s cross-appeal. View "SANCHEZ-RAVUELTA v YAVAPAI" on Justia Law

In 2018, Lillian Hester was convicted by a jury of abusing and murdering her six-year-old nephew, Jack. Lenda Hester, Jack’s grandmother, and Jason Conlee, Lillian’s boyfriend, pleaded guilty to charges of child abuse and endangerment. Jack’s half-sister, Elise, sought over $3 million in restitution for Jack’s future lost wages from the defendants.The Superior Court of Coconino County allowed Elise to assert victims' rights on Jack’s behalf but denied her request for restitution for Jack’s future lost wages, ruling that such wages were consequential damages and not recoverable as restitution. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the future lost wages were too speculative and attenuated to be considered direct economic losses.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that future lost wages of a murdered child are recoverable as restitution if they meet the criteria of being economic losses directly caused by the criminal conduct, as outlined in the Wilkinson test. The court emphasized that the loss of Jack’s future wages was a direct result of his murder and not consequential damages. The court remanded the case to the Superior Court to determine the amount of restitution for Jack’s future lost wages, ensuring that the amount is reasonably estimated and not based on speculation. View "E. H. v HON. SLAYTON" on Justia Law

Martin Montano Jr., an employee of Casas Custom Floor Care, LLC, was involved in a fatal car accident while driving his mother's truck to correct his timesheet at the company's main yard. Michael Cravens, the surviving spouse of the deceased, sued Montano and Casas, alleging negligence and vicarious liability. Cincinnati Indemnity Company, which insured Casas, issued a reservation of rights letter to Montano, disputing its obligation to defend or insure him under the policy.The Superior Court in Pima County granted summary judgment in favor of Cravens, ruling that Montano was using the vehicle "in connection with" Casas's business at the time of the accident, thus obligating Cincinnati to indemnify Montano. The court also upheld the enforceability of a Morris Agreement between Montano and Cravens, which stipulated Montano's liability and assigned his rights under the policy to Cravens. The court of appeals affirmed the superior court's rulings on both coverage and the agreement.The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case and held that an employee operates a non-owned auto "in connection with your business" when using the vehicle while engaged in the employer's business. This does not include a routine commute. The court also held that a contingent Morris agreement is enforceable if it meets the substantive requirements to ensure against fraud, collusion, unfairness, or unreasonableness. The court vacated the court of appeals' coverage ruling, affirmed the ruling on the Morris Agreement, reversed the superior court's judgment, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "CRAVENS v MONTANO" on Justia Law

A constable, Deborah Martinez-Garibay, was fatally shot while attempting to serve a writ of restitution to a tenant who had threatened a resident with a gun. The tenant also killed Angela Fox, who was accompanying Garibay, and another individual before taking his own life. Angela's surviving spouse, William Fox, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Garibay's spouse, Pima County, and the Arizona Constable Ethics, Standards and Training Board, alleging negligence and gross negligence on Garibay's part.The Superior Court of Pima County denied Garibay's spouse's motion for judgment on the pleadings, which argued that Garibay was entitled to judicial immunity and owed no duty to Angela. The Court of Appeals accepted special action jurisdiction and reversed the Superior Court's decision, holding that Garibay was judicially immune from liability as her actions did not constitute "misconduct" under A.R.S. § 11-449.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case to determine whether the common law doctrine of judicial immunity shields constables from liability under A.R.S. § 11-449. The court held that § 11-449 limits, rather than abrogates, judicial immunity. It concluded that a constable who engages in "misconduct" in the service or execution of a writ is subject to liability. The court defined "misconduct" as an intentional violation of an applicable rule, standard, or norm, rather than mere negligence or gross negligence.The court found that Fox's complaint did not allege that Garibay engaged in "misconduct" as defined by the statute, but rather that she was negligent or grossly negligent. Therefore, the court concluded that Garibay was entitled to judicial immunity and reversed the lower court's decision, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "GARIBAY v FOX" on Justia Law

Roxanne Perez was shopping at a Circle K convenience store when she tripped over a store display of bottled water and injured herself. She sued Circle K for negligence and premises liability, claiming that the store had notice of the dangerous condition and failed to remedy it or warn her. Perez argued that Circle K owed her a duty of care as a business invitee to keep the store in a reasonably safe condition.The Superior Court in Maricopa County granted summary judgment in favor of Circle K, finding that the store did not owe Perez a duty because the water display was an open and obvious condition. The court reasoned that Perez would have seen the display had she looked down, and therefore, it did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. The Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the Superior Court's decision in a divided opinion.The Supreme Court of the State of Arizona reviewed the case and concluded that whether the store display was an unreasonably dangerous condition is not relevant to the issue of duty. The court held that Circle K owed Perez a duty of care as a business invitee to keep the store in a reasonably safe condition. The determination of whether the display was unreasonably dangerous pertains to whether Circle K breached its duty, not whether a duty existed. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion in part, reversed the Superior Court's summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Perez v. Circle K" on Justia Law

A police officer from the City of Mesa, while driving his patrol car, was involved in a multi-vehicle accident that injured a bicyclist, Philip Rogers. Rogers claimed the officer's negligent driving caused the accident and served notices of claim to the City of Mesa and the officer, offering to settle for "$1,000,000 or the applicable [insurance] policy limits, whichever are greater." Later, Rogers amended his notices to specify a settlement amount of $1,000,000.The Superior Court of Maricopa County denied the City’s motion to dismiss Rogers' complaint, which argued that the initial notices did not comply with Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-821.01(A) because they did not state a specific settlement amount. The City then petitioned for special action review. The Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court’s decision, directing it to dismiss the complaint, concluding that the notices of claim did not provide a specific amount for settlement as required by the statute.The Supreme Court of Arizona reviewed the case to determine if Rogers' notices of claim complied with § 12-821.01(A). The Court held that the settlement offer of "$1,000,000 or the applicable policy limits, whichever are greater" was insufficiently specific to meet the statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that the statute requires a clear and precise settlement amount, which was not provided in Rogers' notices. Consequently, Rogers was barred from maintaining his lawsuit due to non-compliance with the statutory notice requirements.The Supreme Court of Arizona reversed the Superior Court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Rogers' claims. The Court also affirmed in part and vacated in part the opinion of the Court of Appeals. View "CITY OF MESA v. RYAN" on Justia Law