## Facts

- Larry Kasey attended an employee holiday party where alcohol was available; he also brought whiskey.
- Kasey possessed prescription pain pills containing oxycodone that were prescribed to him for back pain.
- At the party, Sandy Watters (a coworker and girlfriend of Nathan Followill) asked Kasey for a pill; Kasey gave her eight pills of two different strengths without identifying them by name.
- Kasey knew combining the pills with alcohol or exceeding prescribed dosages could cause severe harm, including death, but did not warn Watters.
- Kasey knew Followill sought prescription drugs for recreational use and had previously refused Followill’s requests for pills.
- Followill ingested oxycodone and alcohol and died from combined toxicity.
- Susan Gipson, Followill’s mother, sued Kasey for wrongful death based on negligence for improperly providing prescription medication.

## Issues

1. Whether a person lawfully prescribed medication owes a duty of reasonable care not to provide prescription drugs to persons for whom they were not prescribed.
2. Whether foreseeability is part of the duty inquiry in Arizona negligence law.
3. Whether Arizona statutes regulating prescription-only drugs can supply the public-policy basis for a tort duty in these circumstances.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held that a person prescribed drugs owes a duty of reasonable care not to give those drugs to unauthorized persons.
- The Court held foreseeability is not part of the legal duty analysis; foreseeability is addressed in breach and causation.
- The Court relied on public policy reflected in statutes prohibiting unauthorized distribution of prescription-only drugs to support recognition of the duty.
- The Court affirmed the court of appeals on the existence of duty and remanded for further proceedings, leaving breach, causation, and comparative fault for resolution on the facts.

## Legal Principles

- Duty in negligence is a question of law determined by recognized sources of duty, including special relationships and public policy.
- Foreseeability is not used to decide whether a duty exists; it is relevant to breach and proximate cause.
- Statutes intended to prevent a type of harm and protect a class of persons may support recognition of a tort duty consistent with that legislative policy.
- The absence of a preexisting “special relationship” does not preclude a duty when public policy and the nature of the defendant’s conduct support one.
- Recognition of duty does not establish liability; breach, causation (including possible intervening acts), and comparative fault remain fact questions.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a duty of reasonable care not to provide prescription drugs to unauthorized recipients and clarified that foreseeability does not determine duty in Arizona, remanding for factfinding on breach, causation, and fault allocation.


Gipson v. Kasey, 150 P.3d 228 (Ariz. 2007)