Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co.
275 P.3d 632
Ariz. Ct. App.2012Background
- In 2006, a tractor-trailer operated by Normando Romero, Sr. collided with Delci family members, killing Delci, IV and injuring his son.
- The driving vehicle was unknown; the tractor-trailer was owned by Gutierrez Trucking and/or Rafael Gutierrez-Martinez; keys were left under a floor mat in an unlocked cab.
- Plaintiffs alleged Romero, Sr. negligently failed to secure the tractor-trailer and that Gutierrez Trucking and/or Gutierrez-Martinez were responsible as his employer.
- The superior court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants, citing Shafer v. Monte Mansfield Motors to deny duty.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the court reviews whether a duty of care existed under Arizona law and Gipson framework, not Shafer foreseeability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Shafer control duty to protect from a thief? | Plaintiffs argue Gipson overruling Shafer foresees duty. | Defendants rely on Shafer to deny any duty absent a special relationship or statute. | Duty not owed; Shafer controls. |
| Does Gipson require a fact-specific foreseeability inquiry for duty? | Gipson permits foreseeability to shape duty scope, implying potential duty here. | Duty is a threshold legal question, not based on foreseeability. | Foreseeability not a factor in existence of duty. |
| Can special circumstances or public policy create a duty here? | Public policy may impose duty to safeguard vehicle security under special circumstances. | No special relationship or policy supports a duty; special-circumstances doctrine does not apply in Arizona. | No duty arising from special circumstances or public policy. |
| Should the Restatement (Third) be adopted to create a presumptive duty? | Restatement Third supports presumptive duty to exercise reasonable care. | Arizona should not adopt Third Restatement and maintain no-duty rule absent special relations. | Declines adoption of Restatement Third; no duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shafer v. Monte Mansfield Motors, 91 Ariz. 331 (Ariz. 1962) (car theft foreseeability not extending to duty)
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (Ariz. 2007) (duty determined by fact-specific inquiry; foreseeability not controlling)
- Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500 (Ariz. 1983) (duty to avoid creating unreasonable risk; limits on scope)
- Bloxham v. Glock, Inc., 203 Ariz. 271 (Ariz. 2002) (no duty absent actionable breach; liability requires duty)
- City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323 (Ariz. 1985) (affirmative basis to uphold lower court ruling on duty)
- Fedie v. Travelodge Int'l, Inc., 162 Ariz. 263 (Ariz. App. 1989) (Restatement Second applicability in no-duty analyses)
- Davis v. Mangelsdorf, 138 Ariz. 207 (Ariz. App. 1983) (no-duty principle reaffirmed in Arizona under traditional tests)
- Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 189 Ariz. 206 (Ariz. 1997) (landlord-like duty contexts; distinguishable from vehicle owner duty)