Court Opinion

ID: 9614355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:24:40.468361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:35.587165
License: Public Domain

*409ZLAKET, Justice,
concurring.
I agree that the legislature can and has, in A.R.S. § 12-2506, effectively extended misuse from an affirmative defense that formerly could be employed only where it was the sole proximate cause of a plaintiffs injuries, see A.R.S. 12-683(3) and Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Co., 153 Ariz. 400, 407, 737 P.2d 376, 383 (1987), to one that is now governed by comparative fault principles. Thus, where misuse is a, rather than the, proximate cause of an injury-producing event, it can be considered along with the fault of all other contributors in the final assessment of damages. Obviously, where misuse is the sole proximate cause, the former rule continues to apply—there can be no liability on the part of the defendant.
I write separately only to emphasize that the definition of “misuse” remains essentially unchanged and, in my view, quite limited. It is, by statute in Arizona,
a use or consumption of the product which was for a purpose, in a manner or in an activity other than that which was reasonably foreseeable or was contrary to any express and adequate instructions or warnings appearing on or attached to the product or on its original container or wrapping, if the injured person knew or with the exercise of reasonable and diligent care should have known of such instructions or warnings.
A.R.S. § 12-683(3). Thus, I believe trial judges should resist attempts to characterize every facet of a plaintiff’s alleged misconduct as “misuse.” Otherwise, the line between true misuse and ordinary contributory negligence, already blurred, will be completely obliterated. As the Chief Justice has indicated, contributory negligence continues to be no defense in strict products liability cases. Today’s decision should not be read to suggest otherwise.
I agree with Justice Martone that the statutes in question are anything but clear, but for several reasons cannot subscribe to his conclusion that contributory negligence has now become a viable defense in this type of case. First, AR.S. § 12-2506 specifically refers to both “contributory negligence” and “misuse.” This suggests that the legislature understood the difference and deliberately drew a distinction between the two. We cannot presume redundancy. The well-established rule of construction requires that meaning be given to each word or phrase of a statute, where possible. State v. Pitts, 178 Ariz. 405, 407, 874 P.2d 962, 964 (1994).
Second, A.R.S. § 12-683(3), as set forth above, has been with us for more than a decade and á half. There is no support in legislative history or case law for the proposition that any part of this statute is meant to refer to “a species of contributory negligence,” post at 410, 904 P.2d at 872, or seeks to make traditional notions of such negligence an affirmative defense in products cases. Had the legislature desired to achieve such a result, then or now, it could easily have said so in plain, uncomplicated English. Overturning an entrenched principle of law such as the inapplicability of contributory negligence in strict products liability cases should require nothing less. Thus, in my view, the one thing we should be able to agree on is that the legislature has never established contributory negligence as a defense in such actions. Furthermore, as the majority opinion illustrates, the overwhelming body of law On this subject, here and elsewhere, is solidly to the contrary.
Finally, while the language of § 12-683(3) may be broader than a.historical definition of “misuse,” it nevertheless remains fairly confined and clearly does not encompass the many forms of contributory negligence that could, if permitted, be raised as a defense in these actions.
MARTONE, Justice,
concurring in the judgment.
Because the issues of misuse and contributory negligence are conceptually difficult, and the majority’s opinion is contradictory,1 I write to express my understanding of what *410we have done and why, where I agree and where I disagree.
Even before Gosewisch v. American Honda Motor Company, 153 Ariz. 400, 737 P.2d 376 (1987), misuse occurred when the plaintiff used a product in a way that was unforeseeable. Thus, by definition, whenever there is misuse, the defendant can never proximately cause the injury because it is unforeseeable. Gosewisch only made this concept explicit when it said that the' misuse statute bars recovery only if misuse is “the only proximate cause.” 153 Ariz. at 407, 737 P.2d at 383. Thus, conduct that is genuinely misuse will, by definition, always be the sole proximate cause. It is for this reason that misuse is an all or nothing defense. Because misuse is the sole proximate cause, the product’s defect plays no role in causation and therefore, “a defendant shall not be liable.” A.R.S. § 12-683.
Let me illustrate. Suppose a handgun has a defect in it. Suppose further that plaintiff uses the handgun as a hammer to drive a nail rather than for the purpose for which it was intended. As the handle of the weapon strikes the nail, it fires and the plaintiff is injured. This is product misuse. This is not contributory negligence. Under these facts, the defendant is not liable as a matter of law. On the other hand, suppose plaintiff mishandles the gun at a firing range. He is not careful about where he points it but the safety is on. Suppose further that because of a product defect, the safety does not work and he is injured. Plaintiffs conduct is contributory negligence, which is not a defense to a strict liability case. Up to this point, there is both conceptual and doctrinal clarity.
The problem arises because misuse is included within the definition of “fault” under A.R.S. § 12-2506(F)(2). Thus comparative principles apply. Yet, if misuse still means the sole proximate cause, comparative principles cannot apply. Therefore, the legislature must mean something other than misuse. But it cannot mean contributory negligence if that is not a defense to a products case. What then is this new species of misuse? Under the court’s opinion, this kind of misuse occurs when “it is a contributing cause rather than the sole cause of injury.” Ante, at 403, 904 P.2d at 865. But as we have seen, this is not misuse at all. But if it is not misuse, and it is not contributory negligence, what is it? Neither the court’s opinion nor the other concurring opinion answers this. I do not know how misuse can be less than the sole contributing cause of an injury and not at the same time be contributory negligence. Thus, I believe that our opinion makes some contributory negligence (where a product is not used properly and that improper use is a concurring cause) a defense to a products case, and, unlike the majority, ante, at 408 n. 14, 904 P.2d at 870 n. 14,1 believe this raises no serious constitutional question.
Consider the case before us. This is simply not a case of misuse. Jimenez was using the grinder for the purpose for which it was intended. The defendant argued that he “misused the grinder by failing to wear a protective apron while operating the tool.” Ante, at 401, 904 P.2d at 863. But this would be contributory negligence, not misuse of the product. To be sure, a grinder could be misused. For example, if the plaintiff used the grinder as a substitute submergible bilge pump for his boat and electrocuted himself, the grinder would have been misused, and would have been the sole cause of the injury.
Because I do not see how a foreseeable misuse (and thus a concurring cause) could be anything other than contributory negligence, if today’s decision is to have any practical effect, it means that some form of contributory negligence is a comparative defense to a strict products liability case. This would be compatible with A.R.S. § 12-683(3), because it gives two meanings to the word “misuse.” The first is its true meaning, (“The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was a use or consumption of the product which was for a purpose, in a manner or in an activity other than that which was reasonably foreseeable”). But the second is a species of contributory negligence (“or was contrary to any express and adequate instructions or warnings appearing on or attached to the product or on its original container or wrapping, if the injured person knew or with the exercise of reasonable and *411diligent care should have known of such instructions or warnings”).
While all of this may muddy up the conceptual clarity of the former distinction between misuse and contributory negligence, it may well be that the practical effect will be beneficial. For example, Prosser & Keaton note that “[plerhaps if comparative negligence had preceded the development of strict liability, contributory negligence would have been recognized as a defense.” W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 102, at 712 (5th ed. 1984).
To summarize, true misuse (unforeseeable, sole cause) continues to be an all or nothing defense under § 12-683. Foreseeable misuse (concurring cause) is really contributory negligence, and is now a comparative defense to a products case.

. Compare ante, at 403, 904 P.2d at 865 ("this of course recognizes the misuse defense in cases in which it is a contributing cause rather than the sole cause of injury”) with ante, at 408, 904 P.2d at 870 ("we do not hold that foreseeable misuse or contributory negligence is a defense in a strict products case.”) If the latter is true, to what does the opinion apply?