Facts
- Joseph Zylka and William Easley played golf at Ocotillo Golf Course and consumed alcoholic beverages.
- Ocotillo employees took Zylka’s car keys after he appeared intoxicated.
- Easley offered to drive Zylka home; employees, relying on Easley’s apparent lack of impairment, gave the keys to Easley.
- In the parking lot, Easley returned the keys to Zylka, who drove away, crashed in a single-car accident, and later died.
- Zylka’s survivors sued the Ocotillo entities for wrongful death, alleging Ocotillo’s alcohol service caused the accident.
- Defendants filed a Rule 26(b)(5) notice naming Easley as a nonparty at fault based on his offer to drive and return of the keys.
- The superior court treated plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion as a motion to strike the notice and granted it, removing Easley from fault allocation.
- Defendants sought special action relief in the court of appeals.
Issues
- Whether the superior court erred by striking a Rule 26(b)(5) notice of nonparty at fault on the theory that the nonparty owed no duty to the decedent.
- Whether A.R.S. § 12-2506(B) requires the trier of fact to consider the fault of an identified nonparty alleged to have contributed to the injury.
- Whether the defendants’ allegations that Easley undertook to drive and then returned the keys presented at least a triable negligence theory sufficient to keep the nonparty-at-fault notice in place.
Decision
- The court of appeals accepted special action jurisdiction.
- The court vacated the order striking the notice of nonparty at fault and granted relief to defendants.
- The court held that A.R.S. § 12-2506(B) requires consideration of fault of all persons who contributed to the injury, regardless of whether they were or could have been named as parties.
- The court concluded the superior court improperly eliminated Easley from comparative fault at the threshold stage; duty and breach based on a voluntary undertaking could not be rejected categorically on the record presented.
Legal Principles
- Under A.R.S. § 12-2506(B), the fact finder must consider the fault of all persons who contributed to an alleged injury, even if they are not parties to the suit.
- Rule 26(b)(5) provides the procedural method for defendants to identify a nonparty at fault so that comparative-fault allocation under A.R.S. § 12-2506(B) can occur.
- A defendant may name a nonparty at fault even when the plaintiff is prohibited from suing or recovering from that person directly.
- In reviewing a summary disposition striking a nonparty-at-fault notice, courts construe facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the party aggrieved by the disposition.
- A voluntary undertaking may support a negligence theory; whether conduct created and violated a duty may present factual questions not suited for categorical resolution when striking a nonparty-at-fault notice.
Conclusion
The court of appeals required reinstatement of the nonparty-at-fault notice, holding that Arizona’s comparative-fault scheme mandates consideration of alleged fault by all contributors and that the superior court prematurely excluded Easley based on a duty determination better left for adjudication on an appropriate evidentiary record.