Injury Law 8 (Title 12)
A.R.S. 12-687
Reasonable remedial measures; cause of action; punitive damages
If a person or entity conducts a product safety analysis or review and, as a result, takes reasonable remedial measures, the following shall apply to a product liability action brought against the person or entity:
1. The plaintiff may not use the product safety analysis or review or the reasonable remedial measures to prove negligence, that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous, or other culpable conduct in a product liability action. However, the plaintiff may use the product safety analysis or review or reasonable remedial measures for other purposes, such as proving feasibility of precautionary measures, impeachment or to controvert any position taken by a defendant in litigation which is inconsistent with the contents of the product safety analysis or review or reasonable remedial measures.
2. This subsection does not prevent a plaintiff in a product liability action from proving negligence, that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous, or other culpable conduct by other independent evidence or sources, even if such evidence or sources are mentioned or included in the product safety analysis or review or reasonable remedial measures.
3. The plaintiff may not use the product safety analysis or review or the reasonable remedial measures to prove conduct that would subject the person or entity that caused the product safety analysis or review to be performed to punitive or exemplary damages, unless the plaintiff establishes that the analysis or review, or the reasonable remedial measures, were undertaken in bad faith or solely for the purpose of affecting the litigation instituted by the plaintiff.
4. The existence and contents of a product safety analysis or review and any resulting reasonable remedial measures are discoverable and subject to disclosure in a product liability action unless otherwise privileged. However, a portion of a product safety analysis or review may be designated and maintained as confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to applicable rules of civil procedures if the portion involves trade secrets as defined in section 44-401, proprietary material or competitively sensitive information. Any dispute as to confidentiality shall be determined by a court following an in camera review of the portion of the analysis or review in question.
Comment: This is a detailed Arizona product liability statute. If you have one of these actions, an attorney can help you through the process.
Phoenix Personal Injury Attorneys Arizona
Phoenix Light Rail Accident Attorney
Accidente de Construccion Abogado Phoenix
A.R.S. 12-688
Duty to warn; food products
There is no duty to warn a purchaser, user or consumer or any other person, regardless of age, that the consumption of a food product that is not defective and unreasonably dangerous may cause health problems if consumed excessively.
Comment: A food seller doesn't have to warn someone that normal food could hurt him/her if the food is consumed too much.
Arizona DUI Attorneys, Phoenix Traffic Violation
Traffic Ticket Defense Lawyer Phoenix
A.R.S. 12-701
Drugs; exemplary or punitive damages; definition
A. The manufacturer or seller of a drug is not liable for exemplary or punitive damages if the drug alleged to cause the harm either:
1. Was manufactured and labeled in relevant and material respects in accordance with the terms of an approval or license issued by the federal food and drug administration under the food, drug and cosmetic act (21 United States Code section 301, et seq.) or the public health service act (42 United States Code section 201, et seq.) or
2. Is generally recognized as safe and effective pursuant to conditions established by the federal food and drug administration and applicable regulations, including packaging and labeling regulations.
B. Subsection A does not apply if the plaintiff proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant, either before or after making the drug available for public use, knowingly, in violation of applicable federal food and drug administration regulations, withheld from or misrepresented to the administration information known to be material and relevant to the harm which the plaintiff allegedly suffered.
C. In this section, "drug" means the same as provided in section 201 (g) (1) of the federal food, drug and cosmetic act (21 United States Code section 321 (g) (1)).
Comment: This statute provides some civil liability protection in Arizona for pharmaceutical drug producers.
Phoenix Arizona Bankruptcy Lawyer
Phoenix Injury and Accident Attorneys
A.R.S. 12-713
Emergency call system; public safety radio communications network; liability standard
A person, private entity or public entity or any of its employees that is involved in developing, operating, implementing, maintaining or participating in a 911 emergency telephone system or similar emergency dispatch system or a public safety radio communications network or similar network is not liable for civil damages that result from an act or omission in connection with developing, operating, implementing, maintaining or participating in a 911 emergency telephone system or public safety radio communications network or a similar emergency system or network unless the person or entity acted knowingly or had reason to know the facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that the person's or entity's act or failure to act not only created an unreasonable risk of bodily injury to others, but also involved a high probability that substantial harm would result.
Comment: This Arizona statute provides the liability standard for emergency response communication like 911.
Phoenix Divorce Attorney Arizona