If the other driver's insurer says you share the blame for your crash, that is not the end of your claim in Arizona. The state follows pure comparative negligence, and the rule is written into statute at A.R.S. § 12-2505.1 Your recovery drops by your share of fault, but partial fault does not lock you out. Here is what that means in practice, including a few features of Arizona law that catch people off guard.
Arizona uses pure comparative negligence
Under § 12-2505(A), when a jury finds that you were partly at fault, "the claimant's action is not barred, but the full damages shall be reduced in proportion to the relative degree of the claimant's fault which is a proximate cause of the injury or death."1 "Pure" is the operative word. There is no percentage cutoff.
Some states cut off recovery once your share hits 50% or 51%. Arizona does not. A driver found 70% at fault can still collect 30% of their damages, and someone 95% at fault can still collect 5%. Only a plaintiff who is entirely to blame, or one caught by the wilful-conduct exception below, walks away with nothing.
The math is direct. If your damages come to $100,000 and the jury assigns you 30% of the fault, your award is $70,000.
Why an Arizona jury can decline to reduce your award
Here is the part most summaries miss. Article 18, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution says: "The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury."2
That single sentence does real work. In Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc., the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the comparative negligence statute against a constitutional challenge and confirmed that fault is the jury's call, not the judge's, and that the reduction is permissive.3 A jury can decide you were partly negligent and still choose not to knock anything off your award. The standard jury instruction tells jurors they "may" reduce the damages, not that they must.
The court applied the same logic to assumption of risk in Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., holding that even a signed waiver goes to the jury, which decides whether it actually bars the claim.4 For you, that means a defense adjuster's "you were 40% at fault" is an argument aimed at a jury, not a fixed subtraction from your check.
The conduct that wipes out a claim entirely
Ordinary carelessness reduces your recovery. One category erases it. The last sentence of § 12-2505(A) states that "there is no right to comparative negligence in favor of any claimant who has intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death."1
Wilful or wanton conduct sits well above simple negligence. It describes acting with reckless indifference to a known, obvious risk, the sort of behavior a jury could tie to something like street racing or fleeing from police. If a defendant proves your own conduct crossed that line and helped cause the crash, the comparative-fault reduction disappears and so does your claim. Regular inattention, a missed signal, or a few miles over the limit does not meet that bar. It just shifts a percentage.
Each at-fault party pays only its own share
When more than one driver or company is to blame, Arizona splits the bill. Section 12-2506(A) makes each defendant "liable only for the amount of damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant's percentage of fault," with a separate judgment entered for that amount.5 The jury sets the percentages for everyone at once.5
This is several liability, and it replaced the older joint-and-several system. The Arizona Supreme Court walked through that history in State Farm Insurance Cos. v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc., explaining that Arizona adopted comparative fault in 1984 and that the 1987 amendments abolished joint liability in all but a few situations.6 Those narrow exceptions, where one party can be stuck with another's share, are limited to defendants acting in concert or acting through an agent or servant.5
That structure matters more than it sounds. Say two drivers are each 50% responsible for your injuries and one of them is uninsured. You can only collect that person's 50% from that person, and you cannot make the insured driver cover the gap. This is the practical reason to carry uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. Arizona insurers have to offer UM and UIM in writing, though you are allowed to reject it in writing.7 It also matters because the state's minimum liability limits are low, just $25,000 per person and $50,000 per crash for bodily injury, plus $15,000 for property damage.8 The same fault reduction applies to your vehicle claim, so if you are pursuing a diminished value or property damage claim, your percentage of fault comes off that number too.
The empty chair and the fault of a nonparty
Arizona also lets a defendant point at someone who is not in the lawsuit. Under § 12-2506(B), the jury can assign fault to a nonparty if you settled with that person or if the defendant gives notice before trial under the court rules, and assigning fault to a nonparty does not make that nonparty liable in the case.5
The catch is that any percentage the jury hangs on an absent "empty chair" is money you may never see, because there is no judgment to collect against that person. That is one reason to identify and name every responsible party early, rather than letting a defendant blame a phantom at trial.
Deadlines that interact with fault
Arizona gives you two years from the date of the crash to file suit for personal injury or wrongful death, and the same two-year window covers damage to your vehicle and other property.9 The clock and the fault rules pull in the same direction. Because a defendant can shift blame onto a nonparty, you sometimes need to track down and sue everyone involved before that two-year limit closes. Your crash report is often where those other parties first surface, and you can request one through the Arizona crash report page.
What decides your percentage of fault
No statute assigns you a number. An insurer's early "you were partly at fault" figure is a negotiating position, and it can be argued down with evidence: scene and vehicle photos, the police report, independent witnesses, and sometimes a reconstruction. If liability is contested or several parties are involved, an attorney can help sort out who should be named and how the fault is likely to be apportioned. You can start with the thatcarhitme.com legal directory.
This article is general information about Arizona law, not legal advice.
Sources
-
Arizona State Legislature, A.R.S. § 12-2505 (Comparative negligence; definition). https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/02505.htm
-
Arizona State Legislature, Arizona Constitution, Article 18, Section 5. https://www.azleg.gov/const/18/5.htm
-
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc., 149 Ariz. 130, 717 P.2d 434 (1986). https://www.courtlistener.com/c/ariz/149/130
-
Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc., 210 Ariz. 403, 111 P.3d 1003 (2005). https://www.courtlistener.com/c/ariz/210/403
-
Arizona State Legislature, A.R.S. § 12-2506 (Comparative fault; apportionment of degrees of fault; several liability; definitions). https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/02506.htm
-
State Farm Insurance Cos. v. Premier Manufactured Systems, Inc., 217 Ariz. 222, 172 P.3d 410 (2007). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2584212/state-farm-ins-companies-v-premier-manufactured-systems-inc/
-
Arizona State Legislature, A.R.S. § 20-259.01 (Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage). https://www.azleg.gov/ars/20/00259-01.htm
-
Arizona State Legislature, A.R.S. § 28-4009 (Minimum motor vehicle liability policy limits). https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/04009.htm
-
Arizona State Legislature, A.R.S. § 12-542 (Injury to person or property; two year limitation). https://www.azleg.gov/ars/12/00542.htm