Other articles by Howard Fischer:

2 bishops urge OK of ballot ban on gay marriages Lawsuit could void photo-radar tickets Judge to keep hands off election-fund law, for nowBiz finances survived AZ smoking ban Phx. TV station wants to ease cameras' access to courtrooms Judge scraps part of Ariz. public-election law Affirmative-action foes give up on 2008 ballot Taxes collected in Arizona continue to shrink Attorney seeks end to public matching funds Judge stalls ballot mailing over Prop. 104

Trades/Construction
PARKWAY CONSTRUCTION
SUPERINTENDENTS Driver/Transportation
DRIVERS Sales and Marketing
Town and Country Foods
Sales Manager Technical
Unitek USA
Satellite Installers General
Maintenance Technician Driver/Transportation
REPOSSESSION DRIVERS Construction
Green Valley Heating & Cooling
HVAC Service Tech

Businesses can't be held liable for dangerous conditions on their property unless injured people can prove the company knew or should have known about the risk.

The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the decision of a trial judge, who threw out a complaint filed by parents who said their daughter was injured in 2004 on playground equipment at a Carl's Jr. restaurant in Nogales.

In their lawsuit, Luis and Celina Martinez said their daughter, Ivana, was hurt on the slide at the restaurant. They said the injury was caused by a protruding bolt or screw.

In response to pretrial questioning, the couple said they were not alleging that MJKL Enterprises, which owns the restaurant, or any of its employees were actually aware the screw or bolt was protruding.

But they said someone from the company knew or should have known because "the slide had been there for a long time."

Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Anna Montoya-Paez dismissed the case.

Appellate Judge J. William Brammer, writing for the court, said that was the correct decision.

Brammer said lawsuits against businesses for negligence do not require proof of actual knowledge of the hazard. Absent that, however, he said there needs to be proof that the condition existed so long that an owner should have known and taken action to remedy it.

In this case, Brammer said, the couple presented no evidence of how long the screw or bolt had been protruding. Instead, they argued that the nature of the defect would allow a court to conclude the problem had been there sufficiently long that the owner or manager should have known.

Brammer said some claims can be proven like that. He cited one case in which the appellate court found the condition of a sidewalk was such that a jury could reasonably conclude the deterioration had occurred over a period of time.

Here, however, Brammer said the couple provided no evidence that the exposing of the screw or bolt could not have occurred suddenly.

"Indeed, they produced no evidence whatsoever relevant to MJKL's negligence," he wrote.