Glazer v. State
321 P.3d 470
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- In Aug. 2007, a multi-vehicle crash on I-10 near milepost 171 killed Diana Glazer’s husband and daughter and injured Glazer.
- Glazer sued the State of Arizona for negligence for failing to install a median barrier in the crash area.
- The State invoked A.R.S. § 12-820.03 immunity defense and sought apportionment of fault to nonparties at fault.
- Dr. Bleyl, a transportation engineer, testified the State should have installed a median barrier prior to the crash.
- After an eight-day trial, the jury attributed all fault to the State and none to nonparties, prompting the State’s appeal challenging immunity, Bleyl’s testimony, and the fault allocation.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding §12-820.03 did not apply, Bleyl’s testimony was admissible, and the trial court did not err in denying a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 12-820.03 immunize the State from Glazer’s claim? | Glazer claims the duty to keep highways safe and the failure to install barriers falls outside § 12-820.03 | State argues Glazer’s claim arises from a post-1967 change in conditions, not construction plan; thus immunity applies | No; § 12-820.03 does not apply to Glazer’s failure-to-upgrade claim. |
| Was Dr. Bleyl qualified and his methodology reliable to support the median barrier claim? | Bleyl’s engineering expertise and data support the barrier must have been considered | Bleyl lacked highway design experience and used an improper data set | Bleyl was qualified; his methodology was admissible and the court did not abuse discretion. |
| Did the court need express Rule 702 findings about Bleyl’s testimony? | Findings unnecessary if testimony admissible | Explicit Daubert-like findings may be required in some circuits | Not required here; the court properly admitted Bleyl’s testimony. |
| Was the verdict properly denying fault to Sumpter and the truck driver, given non-parties at fault evidence? | Jury could find State solely at fault given evidence of barrier omission | Nonparties could be at fault; jury could allocate zero fault to them | Yes; the verdict allocating all fault to State was permissible based on the record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 (1990) (government liability; immunity exception to common-law rule)
- Edwards v. Board of Supervisors, 224 Ariz. 221 (App. 2010) (affirmative defense in 12-820.03 context; not controlling here)
- Clem v. City of Tucson, 28 Ariz. 315 (1925) (duty to keep streets safe; erection of barriers where necessary)
- Mayfield v. City of Phoenix, 41 Ariz. 537 (1933) (duty to erect guards/railings to prevent hazards)
- Desert Mountain Props. Ltd. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins., 225 Ariz. 194 (App. 2010) (appellate review of de novo decisions; evidentiary issues)
- State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., 216 Ariz. 233 (App. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard related to trial rulings)