Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alaface v. National Investment Co.

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided September 1, 1994No. 1 CA-CV 91-0210Published

1DissentVoss, Judge

I concur with the majority opinion with one exception: I do not agree that a violation of A.R.S. section 32-2181 is negligence per se because I do not believe section 32-2181 qualifies as a statute intended “for the safety of others.” Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500, 511, 667 P.2d 200, 211 (1983).

The majority bases its holding on the following statement:

The subdivision reporting statutes were enacted to protect buyers of subdivision lots ... from buying residential lots not containing the utility services necessary to make the property safe and habitable.... Therefore, because the…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Ontiveros v. BorakArizona Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Brannigan v. RaybuckArizona Supreme Court · 1983
  3. MacNeil v. PerkinsArizona Supreme Court · 1958
  4. Pratt v. DalyArizona Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Young Candy & Tobacco Company v. MontoyaArizona Supreme Court · 1962

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API