Preuss v. Sambo's of Arizona, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• adopting a negligence 17 analysis in finding a possessor of a premises had “an affirmative duty to make the 18 premises reasonably safe”
• noting business “is not an insurer of their safety and is not required to keep the premises absolutely safe”
• trial court erred in denying motion for directed verdict when evidence did not support jury’s speculative finding that defendant had known or should have known of alleged defect
• trial court erred in denying motion for directed verdict when evidence did not support jury’s speculative finding that defendant had known or should have known of alleged defect
• “The law is clear in Arizona that the proprietor of a business is under an affirmative duty to make the premises reasonably safe for use by invitees; however, he is not an insurer of their safety and is not required to keep the premises absolutely safe.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).