Legal Opinion
Orth v. Cole
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided March 10, 1998No. 1 CA-CV 97-0194PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NOYES, Judge.
¶ 1 James Orth (“Plaintiff’) is a fireman who was injured during routine inspection of an apartment complex owned and operated by Defendants. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff claims that Defendants are at fault for his injuries and should pay damages. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants on grounds that the “fireman’s rule” bars lawsuits such as this. Our jurisdiction of Plaintiffs appeal is pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated (“A.R.S.”) section 12-2101(B). We conclude that the fireman’s rule does not apply to routine building inspections.
¶ 2…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Krauth v. Israel Geller and Buckingham Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Garcia v. City of South TucsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
- Grable v. VarelaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1977
- Owens v. City of PhoenixCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1994
- Stephens v. Bashas' Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1996
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Espinoza v. SchulenburgArizona Supreme Court · 2006
- Jeanette M Sanders v. Francis AlgerArizona Supreme Court · 2017
- Read v. KeyfauverCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
- McKernan v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Kansas · 2000
- Espinoza v. SchulenburgCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.