McDowell v. Davis, No. 9426--PR
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
| Writing for the Court | STRUCKMEYER; McFARLAND |
| Citation | 448 P.2d 869,104 Ariz. 69 |
| Decision Date | 27 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 9426--PR |
| Parties | Howard Eugene McDOWELL, Jr., Howard Eugene McDowell and Blanche C. McDowell, Appellants, v. Thomas M. DAVIS, a minor, C. E. Davis, Read Mullan Motor Company, an Arizona corporation, Michael W. Altamirano and the City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, Appellees. |
Page 869
v.
Thomas M. DAVIS, a minor, C. E. Davis, Read Mullan Motor Company, an Arizona corporation, Michael W. Altamirano and the City of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, Appellees.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1969.
[104 Ariz. 70]
Page 870
Moore, Romley, Kaplan, Robbins & Green, by Elias M. Romley and Craig R. Kepner, Phoenix, for appellants.Browder & Gillenwater, by Robert W. Browder, Phoenix, for appellees, Davis.
Snell & Wilmer, by John J. Bouma, Phoenix, for appellee, Read Mullan Motor Co.
Kramer, Roche, Burch, Streich & Cracchiolo, by Dan Cracchiolo, Phoenix, for appellees, Altamirano and the City of Phoenix.
STRUCKMEYER, Justice.
This action was brought by Howard Eugene McDowell, Jr., a minor, and his parents, appellants. Howard Eugene McDowell was a passenger in an automobile driven by appellee, Thomas M. Davis, when their vehicle collided with a sanitation truck of appellee, City of Phoenix. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Read Mullan Motor Company, the owner of the Davis car, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellants and against the appellees, Thomas M. Davis, a minor and C. E. Davis, his father, in the total sum of $163,117.28. A judgment was returned in favor of appellees, the City of Phoenix and its driver, Michael W. Altamirano.
Appellants ask for a new trial against all parties defendant because of certain errors occurring during the trial. The Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed the judgments. On appellants' motion for review we accepted jurisdiction to examine into the correctness of that court's decision approving the trial court's instruction on [104 Ariz. 71]
Page 871
proximate cause. Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One, 8 Ariz.App. 33, 442 P.2d 856, disapproved in part and this cause reversed as to all parties except the Read Mullan Motor Company.This court has repeatedly defined proximate cause as:
'The proximate cause of an injury is that which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces an injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred.' (Citations)
No principle of law has been so unvaryingly stated. Brand v. J. H. Rose Trucking Co., 102 Ariz. 201, 427 P.2d 519; Stearnmam v. Miranda, 97 Ariz. 55, 396 P.2d 622; Alires v. Southern Pacific Co., 93 Ariz. 97, 378 P.2d 913; Lyric Amusement Co. v. Jeffries, 58 Ariz. 381, 120 P.2d 417; Salt River Valley Water Users' Association v. Cornum, 49 Ariz. 1, 63 P.2d 639; Chapman v. Salazar, 40 Ariz. 215, 11 P.2d 613; Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Conwell, 21 Ariz. 480, 190 P. 88.
The trial court defined proximate cause to the jury in the foregoing usual and customary manner and then, over the appellant's objection, added:
"Ladies and gentlemen, another test of proximate cause recognized by our law may be helpful to you. Was the negligent act of the party under consideration a material element or a substantial factor in producing the injury? An act or an omission cannot be a proximate cause if it contributes only slightly or possibly to the result, for a proximate cause is one which is a material element or a substantial factor in causing the injury." (Emphasis supplied.)
The quoted instruction given by the trial court was taken verbatim from the Arizona Uniform Jury Instructions, No. 5--A prepared by the State Bar Committee on Uniform Jury Instructions.
The 'substantial factor test,' as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braillard v. Maricopa County, 2 CA-CV 2009-0059.
...unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces an injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred.” McDowell v. Davis, 104 Ariz. 69, 71, 448 P.2d 869, 871 (1968). There may “be more than one ‘proximate cause’ without which the resulting injuries would not have occurred,”......
-
Perez v. Campbell, 5175
...that there is no liability for damages arising from the accident. Heimke v. Munoz, 106 Ariz. 26, 470 P.2d 107 (1970); McDowell v. Davis, 104 Ariz. 69, 448 P.2d 869 (1968). Under the Safety Responsibility Act, the apparent result of such a judgment is that no consequences are visited upon ei......
-
Cecala v. Newman, CV 04-02612-PHX-NVW.
...747, 758 (D.Md.2001) (distinguishing between cause in fact and legal cause in attorney-negligence malpractice). In McDowell v. Davis, 104 Ariz. 69, 71, 448 P.2d 869, 871 (1968), a case involving the negligent operation of an automobile, the court observed that "proximate cause" has been unv......
-
Wehmeier v. UNR Industries, Inc., s. 4-90-0361
...force but rather with its legal significance. (W. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 41, at 267 (5th ed. 1984); McDowell v. Davis (1968), 104 Ariz. 69, 448 P.2d 869.) Where there is competent evidence that one or a de minimus number of asbestos fibers can cause injury, a jury may conclude ......
-
Cecala v. Newman, No. CV 04-02612-PHX-NVW.
...747, 758 (D.Md.2001) (distinguishing between cause in fact and legal cause in attorney-negligence malpractice). In McDowell v. Davis, 104 Ariz. 69, 71, 448 P.2d 869, 871 (1968), a case involving the negligent operation of an automobile, the court observed that "proximate cause" has been unv......
-
Braillard v. Maricopa County, No. 2 CA-CV 2009-0059.
...unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces an injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred.” McDowell v. Davis, 104 Ariz. 69, 71, 448 P.2d 869, 871 (1968). There may “be more than one ‘proximate cause’ without which the resulting injuries would not have occurred,”......
-
Perez v. Campbell, No. 5175
...that there is no liability for damages arising from the accident. Heimke v. Munoz, 106 Ariz. 26, 470 P.2d 107 (1970); McDowell v. Davis, 104 Ariz. 69, 448 P.2d 869 (1968). Under the Safety Responsibility Act, the apparent result of such a judgment is that no consequences are visited upon ei......
-
Wehmeier v. UNR Industries, Inc., Nos. 4-90-0361
...force but rather with its legal significance. (W. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts § 41, at 267 (5th ed. 1984); McDowell v. Davis (1968), 104 Ariz. 69, 448 P.2d 869.) Where there is competent evidence that one or a de minimus number of asbestos fibers can cause injury, a jury may conclude ......