 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Deloach v. Alfred6/9/1998
ious conduct for two years under the Arizona statute and the Moores' expectation of repose after one year are satisfied. We also find that the basic policies underlying tort law - to deter wrongful conduct and compensate victims for their loss - are satisfied by permitting the action to go forward in Arizona. See Restatement Section 6(2)(e). Finally, we observe that in this case the general rule of revised Restatement Section 142 applying the statute of the forum produces certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result. See Restatement Section 6(2)(f).
The parties raise and argue other issues concerning whether this decision should be applied prospectively only. We deem those issues irrelevant and therefore do not consider them.
CONCLUSION
Under the facts of this case, the Arizona limitations period applies to an Arizona defendant sued in Arizona by a California plaintiff for damages resulting from tortious conduct in Tennessee. The court of appeals' opinion is vacated, the trial Judge's denial of summary judgment on the statute of limitations issue is approved, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
STANLEY G. FELDMAN, Justice
CONCURRING THOMAS A. ZLAKET, Chief Justice CHARLES E. JONES, Vice Chief Justice FREDERICK J. MARTONE, Justice RUTH V. McGREGOR, Justice
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|