Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the anti-abrogation clause does not prohibit regulation of torts but protects access to the courts
• holding that abandoning doctrine imposing heightened standard of care on common carriers did not violate the anti-abrogation clause
• holding that common carriers owe the objective, reasonable person standard of care instead of a heightened standard
• discussing that the application of a different duty of care did not violate the anti-abrogation clause because the defendant still had reasonable possibility of obtaining legal redress
• “[A]ny dangers in common carriage and the passenger’s dependence upon the carrier can appropriately be considered under the general standard of reasonable care under the circumstances.”
• “We have repeatedly noted that the legislature is entitled to regulate common law tort actions, as long as a claimant is left a reasonable possibility of obtaining legal redress.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).