 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Romero v. Southwest Ambulance8/31/2005
hat article 18, § 6 precludes abrogation, but not regulation."); Jimenez v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 183 Ariz. 399, 407, 904 P.2d 861, 869 (1995) ("We long ago held that our constitution permits regulations effectively reducing a plaintiff's recovery."); cf. Little v. All Phoenix S. Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 186 Ariz. 97, 919 P.2d 1368 (App. 1995) (mental health statute eliminating all claims not within its confines abrogated general negligence cause of action for identified class of plaintiffs in violation of Art. 18 § 6); Young v. DFW Corp., 184 Ariz. 187, 908 P.2d 1 (App. 1995) (statute providing exclusive remedy for dram shop liability abrogated general right to sue guaranteed by Art. 18 § 6). For that reason, as well as the foregoing discussion, we do not find that § 12-711 violates Article 18 § 6, the only constitutional issue presented and addressed here.
Absent any constitutional infirmity, a jury instruction should be given if the evidence tends to establish a theory supported by the instruction. Anderson v. Nissei ASB Mach. Co., 197 Ariz. 168, 3 P.3d 1088 (App. 1999). The evidence apparently did so here. Therefore, we cannot say the trial court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to the statute.
Defendants have requested attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Rule 21(c), Ariz. R. Civ. App. P., as a sanction against Romero for failing to comply with the rule requiring transcripts. In our discretion, we decline to award such fees.
Based on the foregoing, the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
CONCURRING:
JOHN PELANDER, Chief Judge
M. JAN FLÓREZ, Presiding Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|