Court Opinion

ID: 9792803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:36:59.342236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:17.848230
License: Public Domain

LANKFORD, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority. I write separately to state that, in my view, our opinion does not indicate that the Arizona Constitution prohibits the judiciary from either declaring whether a duty in tort exists or defining the extent of a duty. The fact that a duty question can be east in the language of contributory negligence or assumption of risk does not necessarily mean that the constitution prevents the courts from answering the question.
Nor do I believe that Schwab v. Motley should be read so broadly. Schwab rested principally on an interpretation of a statute, holding that the legislation addressed contributory negligence rather than duty. 164 Ariz. at 424, 793 P.2d 1088. While the court also said that the legislature cannot “abolish the recognized common law duties of care,” id. at 425, 793 P.2d 1088, that proscription is found in another constitutional provision. See Art. 18, § 6. When the issue is not whether an historic duty at common law can be erased by legislation, but is instead whether the common law recognizes a duty, the constitution does not bar the courts from performing their basic function of declaring the law.