An Arizona appellate court has looked at the evisceration of duty in the Restatement Third and recognized the effort for what it is: an approach that "significantly lessens the role of the court as a legal arbiter of whether society should recognize the existence of a duty in particular categories of cases; for this reason, adopting the Third Restatement would increase the expense of litigation." Accordingly the court held that while "restricting the dismissal of negligence actions for lack of duty may be thought desirable as more protective of a litigant’s jury-trial right, such a fundamental change in the common law requires an evaluation of competing public policies that is more appropriately addressed to the Arizona Supreme Court" and so declined a request to adopt the Third Restatement. See Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Company.
In Arizona duty remains an essential element of negligence. Which is to say that Arizona’s courts, like most American courts, "do not understand the law to be that one owes a duty of reasonable care at all times to all people under all circumstances." Palsgraf lives.