Skip to content 
More viable Arizona claims are abandoned over this misunderstanding than any other. Someone accepts that they were partly responsible. They were a little fast, they looked down for a second and concluded there is nothing to pursue. In most states that instinct would be partly right. In Arizona it is wrong, and the statute says so in plain language.
What Does “Pure Comparative Fault” Actually Mean?
Your damages get reduced by your share of fault, and there is no cutoff. A.R.S. § 12-2505 provides that where the jury applies contributory negligence or assumption of risk, “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.”
Read that middle clause again: the action is not barred. Not at 40%, not at 60%, not at 90%. A claimant found overwhelmingly responsible still recovers the remaining fraction.
One definitional detail catches people out. Under subsection B, “claimant’s fault” includes fault imputed or attributed to a claimant by operation of law so in limited circumstances a percentage can attach to you through someone else’s conduct rather than your own.
A Real-World Example
Take a collision on a Phoenix arterial. You are struck by a driver turning left across your path, and your damages are established at $200,000 medical bills, lost income, and the non-economic harm of the injury.
The insurer argues you were traveling 8 mph over the limit and that this contributed. A jury agrees, and assigns you 25% of the fault.
In a state with a 50% bar, that outcome looks the same. Now change the finding to 60% yours. In most states you recover nothing. In Arizona you recover $80,000.
That is the whole practical difference, and it is why the percentage is the most valuable number in the file for both sides. Each single point is $2,000 on a $200,000 claim.
Because every percentage point of assigned fault directly reduces your payout, an Arizona car accident lawyer should review the police report before you accept any fault determination.
How Arizona Differs from Most Other States
Arizona is in the minority. Most states apply modified comparative fault, barring recovery entirely once a claimant crosses a threshold usually 50% or 51%. A claimant one point over the line goes home with nothing.
The contrast is visible right at the borders. Nevada and Utah both cut recovery off once a claimant passes their threshold, while California and New Mexico apply pure comparative fault as Arizona does. A crash with identical facts can be worth a full reduced share on one side of a state line and zero on the other.
Two related Arizona features compound the difference. The state constitution prohibits laws limiting damages for injury or death, so there are no statutory caps on compensatory damages; what limits real recoveries is available insurance, not law. And Arizona’s fault rules apply the same way to property damage, including the market value a repaired vehicle permanently loses.
Who Actually Decides Your Percentage?
A jury and in Arizona that is constitutionally protected. Section 12-2505 opens by stating that contributory negligence and assumption of risk are “in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury,” language that repeats the guarantee in Article 18, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution.
Arizona courts have given that real force. The Arizona Supreme Court has held it is constitutionally forbidden to enter summary judgment for a defendant on the ground of assumption of risk, and that the guarantee reaches even express contractual waivers a signed release does not dispose of a case as a matter of law.
The practical consequence for your claim is direct: an adjuster cannot set your fault percentage. They can only predict what a jury would find. When they tell you flatly that you were 30% at fault, that is a forecast dressed as a determination, and forecasts move against evidence reconstruction, sightline analysis, vehicle event data, and independent witnesses.
The One Exception That Can Cost You Everything
[ATTORNEY REVIEW] Section 12-2505(A) closes with a sentence that functions as the single cliff in an otherwise cliff-free system: “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.”
So a claimant whose own conduct was intentional or wanton not merely careless may forfeit the benefit of comparative principles altogether rather than simply taking a reduction.
Two important qualifications. The Arizona Supreme Court examined this provision in Williams v. Thude and addressed how far it can go given the constitutional guarantee that these defenses remain with the jury, so the exception is narrower in application than its wording suggests. And it is asymmetric: Arizona case law has allowed a defendant who acted willfully or wantonly to still seek a reduction based on the claimant’s comparative fault. The exception cuts against claimants, not defendants.
Ordinary negligence, speeding, distraction, and a missed check does not come close to this standard. It produces a percentage, not a bar.
What Happens When Several Parties Are at Fault?
Each pays only its own share. Arizona abolished joint and several liability under A.R.S. § 12-2506, so a defendant found minimally at fault does not have to cover the rest. If a jury assigns three drivers 50%, 30%, and 20%, you collect those shares separately and if one is uninsured, that portion may simply not be there.
Two mechanics follow. Fault can be allocated to a nonparty at fault, a fleeing driver, an unidentified motorist, an out-of-reach employer and fault assigned to an empty chair is fault nobody pays. Under Rule 26(b)(5) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure a defendant generally must make that designation within 150 days of filing its answer, and missing the window means the jury cannot apportion there. And settling with one defendant does not shift its percentage onto the others, which is why an early settlement can quietly cap the total.
What Does Not Determine Your Percentage
Three things insurers treat as settled that are not:
A paid traffic citation. Under A.R.S. § 28-1599, an admission of the allegations in a civil traffic complaint, or a judgment on it, is not evidence of negligence in a civil proceeding. That runs both ways; your paid ticket cannot be used against you, and the other driver’s does not establish their liability.
The narrative section of the crash report. An investigating officer’s opinion about contributing factors is not a finding of civil fault, and reports contain correctable errors, a reversed direction of travel, an omitted witness.
Seat belt non-use. Arizona limits this sharply. It goes to the extent of the injuries rather than to who caused the crash, and requires proof that non-use actually caused or enhanced the harm. It does not reduce damages for losses a belt would not have prevented.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I still get compensation if I was partly at fault in Arizona? Yes. A.R.S. § 12-2505 provides that applying contributory negligence or assumption of risk does not bar the claim damages are reduced in proportion to your share of fault, with no percentage cutoff. A claimant found 70% responsible still recovers 30% of proven damages.
How is my percentage of fault decided? By the jury. Section 12-2505 states these defenses are “in all cases a question of fact” left to the jury, echoing Article 18, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution. An insurance adjuster cannot set your percentage; they can only predict what a jury would find, which is why documented evidence moves the number.
How does Arizona compare to other states on partial fault? Arizona is one of a minority of pure comparative fault states. Most states apply a modified rule barring recovery once a claimant crosses 50% or 51%, so a claim worth a reduced share in Arizona could be worth nothing across a state line. Nevada and Utah apply a threshold bar; California and New Mexico do not.
Is there any situation where partial fault bars recover entirely? Section 12-2505(A) states there is no right to comparative negligence for a claimant who intentionally, willfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury. That is a far higher standard than ordinary carelessness, and Arizona case law has narrowed how it operates against the constitutional guarantee that these defenses stay with the jury.
Does a traffic ticket prove who was at fault? No. Under A.R.S. § 28-1599 an admission of a civil traffic complaint, or a judgment on it, is not evidence of negligence in a civil proceeding in either direction. Fault has to be proven from the underlying facts.
If three drivers were at fault, can I collect everything from one? No. A.R.S. § 12-2506 abolished joint and several liability, so each defendant is generally responsible only for its own percentage. Fault can also be assigned to an unidentified nonparty, and that share goes unpaid which is why your own underinsured motorist coverage often matters.
Before You Accept a Fault Percentage
An adjuster stating your share as a fact has made a prediction, applied a discount, and moved on. The percentage is the most negotiable number in the claim, and it responds to evidence rather than argument.
Harris Injury Law, PLLC 1136 E Campbell Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85014 (480) 800-4878
Consultations are free and cases run on a contingency fee, meaning no attorney fee unless compensation is recovered. Request a consultation or meet our attorneys, or read how fault gets proven in practice. Every case depends on its own facts; no outcome can be promised or predicted.
This article provides general information about Arizona law and is not legal advice. Reading it creates no attorney-client relationship. Arizona statutes and case law change, and outcomes depend on the specific facts of a claim. Consult a licensed Arizona attorney about your situation.
Reviewed by Jason A. Harris, Harris Injury Law, PLLC.
