Thomas v. First Interstate Bank of Arizona, N.A.

Decision Date30 July 1996
Docket NumberCA-CV,No. 2,2
Citation187 Ariz. 488,930 P.2d 1002
Parties, 54 A.L.R.5th 827 Darlene THOMAS, surviving spouse of John Warren Thomas, on her own behalf and on behalf of John Jr., Kayla and Tiffany Thomas, the minor children of Darlene and John Warren Thomas, and George W. Thomas III and Kathleen J. Thomas, the parents of John Warren Thomas, deceased, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF ARIZONA, N.A., Defendant/Appellant. 96-0061.
CourtArizona Court of Appeals
OPINION

HATHAWAY, Judge.

In this wrongful death action against First Interstate Bank, the issue on appeal is whether the comparative fault statute, A.R.S. § 12-2506, permits the allocation of fault between an allegedly negligent defendant, appellant First Interstate Bank, and a non-party (Patrick Slay), who commits a criminal act of murder. On plaintiffs' Motion for Declaratory Judgment for interpretation of the statute, the trial court entered a formal judgment, certified under Ariz.R. Civ. P. 54(b), 16 A.R.S., granting plaintiffs' motion and striking Slay as a non-party at fault. We conclude that such an individual can be so designated and reverse the trial court's ruling.

The relevant facts are undisputed. At approximately 10 p.m. on July 19, 1992, Slay approached a customer using the automatic teller machine located in the front of the First Interstate Bank in Sierra Vista. Slay displayed a gun and demanded money from the customer, who withdrew $200 from the machine. Slay grabbed the money and ran along the side of the building, pursued by the customer. The victim, John Thomas, a private security guard hired to escort a bank customer who was making a night deposit, was standing at the back of the bank building. Thomas had parked at the rear of the bank and was watching while the deposit was being made. Slay ran straight toward Thomas, fired three shots at him and ran off into the night. Thomas died from his wounds. Slay was eventually arrested and is incarcerated.

Appellees filed a wrongful death suit against First Interstate Bank, which moved to have Slay designated as a non-party at fault. Appellees opposed the motion, contending the comparative fault statute does not contemplate intentional criminal conduct. The trial court denied the motion, hence this appeal.

A.R.S. § 12-2506(B) states, in part, "In assessing percentages of fault the trier of fact shall consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the alleged injury, death or damage to property...." (Emphasis added). Appellees contend that because of the absence of any reference to "criminal conduct" in the statute, it is ambiguous and does not permit allocation of fault between a negligent defendant and a non-party who commits a criminal act causing plaintiff's injuries. As plaintiffs acknowledge, however, some acts are both torts and crimes. The tort remedy for criminal homicide is, of course, an action for wrongful death. A plain meaning interpretation of § 12-2506 encounters no ambiguity. The legislature defined fault broadly to include all types of fault committed by all persons. Previous Arizona cases have skirted the issue of intentional fault by concluding the tortfeasor acted recklessly, willfully or wantonly. See Wareing v. Falk, 182 Ariz. 495, 897 P.2d 1381 (App.1995);. Natseway v. City of Tempe, 184 Ariz 374, 909 P.2d 441 (App.1995). We find helpful the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in Blazovic v. Andrich, 124 N.J. 90, 107, 590 A.2d 222, 231, 18 A.L.R. 5th 1031 (1991), where it observed: "[W]e reject the concept that intentional conduct is 'different in kind' from both negligence and wanton and willful conduct.... Instead, we view intentional wrongdoing as 'different in degree' from either negligence or wanton and willful conduct." Excluding the acts of an intentional tortfeasor would detract from the legislature's definition of fault. We find the statute unambiguous on this issue.

Appellees' interpretation of § 12-2506 would also frustrate the legislative intent of the statute. In Dietz v. General Elec. Co., 169 Ariz. 505, 510, 821 P.2d 166, 171 (1991), the supreme court acknowledged that the legislature specifically enacted § 12-2506 to establish "a system of several liability making each tortfeasor responsible for paying for his or her percentage of fault and no more." (Emphasis...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • December 16, 1998
    ...'The legislature defined fault broadly to include all types of fault committed by all persons' ", quoting Thomas v. First Interstate Bank, 187 Ariz. 488, 930 P.2d 1002, 1003 (App.1996)); Veazey, 650 So.2d at 717 (finding that courts apportioning liability to intentional tortfeasors "explici......
  • Bhinder v. Sun Co., Inc., 15820
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 11, 1998
    ...was sexually assaulted, to seek apportionment of noneconomic damages from intentional tortfeasor); Thomas v. First Interstate Bank of Arizona, 187 Ariz. 488, 489-90, 930 P.2d 1002 (1996) (statute permitted apportionment of liability between negligent and intentional tortfeasors as between a......
  • Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • October 8, 1996
    ...of fault, including intentional wrongdoing. A recent case from Division Two reaches the same conclusion. In Thomas v. First Interstate Bank, 488 Ariz. 187, 930 P.2d 1002 (App.1996) a private security guard was shot and killed by an individual who was trying to rob an automatic teller custom......
  • Zuern By and Through Zuern v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 1996
    ...Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 188 Ariz. 183, 192, 933 P.2d 1251, 1260 (Ct.App.1996). 4 See also Thomas v. First Interstate Bank, 187 Ariz. 488, 930 P.2d 1002 (Ct.App.1996); Natseway v. City of Tempe, 184 Ariz. 374, 909 P.2d 441 (App.1995). In addition, our supreme court has made clear that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Personal Injury Handbook
    • May 4, 2013
    ...(2003), §16:20 T Tackett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 653 A.2d 254 (Del. 1995), §16:21 Thomas v. First Interstate Bank, N.A. , 488, 930 P.2d 1002 (Ariz. 1996), §6:12 Thompson v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. , 559 N.W.2d 288 (Iowa 1997), §16:08 Titus v. Bethlehem Steel Corp , 91 Cal.App.3d 3......
  • § 2.1 INTRODUCTION
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona Motor Vehicle Accident 2 Comparative Fault In Arizona
    • Invalid date
    ...equation. Rosner v. Denim & Diamonds, Inc., 188 Ariz. 431, 433, 937 P.2d 353, 355 (1996), citing to Thomas v. First Interstate Bank, 187 Ariz. 488, 930 P.2d 1002 (Ct. App. 1996). Where comparative negligence is available, the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk are al......
  • Premises Security Cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Personal Injury Handbook
    • May 4, 2013
    ...require the apportionment of liability between the defendant and the criminal. See, e.g., Thomas v. First Interstate Bank, N.A. , 488, 930 P.2d 1002 (Ariz. 1996) (lower court must allow apportionment of liability between bank and assailant who murdered decedent as he was using ATM, rejectin......
  • 29.10 Comparative Fault
    • United States
    • State Bar of Arizona AZ Tort Law Handbook Chapter 29 Wrongful Death (29.1 to 29.11.3)
    • Invalid date
    ...(affirming application of § 12-2506 comparative fault analysis to wrongful death claim); Thomas v. First Interstate Bank of Ariz., N.A., 187 Ariz. 488, 490, 930 P.2d 1002, 1004 (App. 1996)...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT