When someone is injured due to another person’s actions, determining who was at fault is a critical step in any personal injury case. But what happens when both parties share some responsibility for the accident?
In Arizona, personal injury claims are governed by a legal concept known as comparative negligence. This doctrine allows injury victims to pursue compensation—even if they were partially at fault. However, how much you can recover may depend on your percentage of responsibility.
Here’s what you need to know about comparative negligence in Arizona and how it may affect your personal injury claim.
What Is Comparative Negligence?
Comparative negligence is a legal principle used to allocate fault between all parties involved in an accident. In Arizona, this means that if you were injured in an accident but share some blame for what happened, you may still be able to recover compensation—just at a reduced amount.
For example:
- If you are awarded $100,000 in damages but found to be 20% at fault, your compensation would be reduced by 20%, resulting in $80,000.
This is referred to as pure comparative negligence, which Arizona follows.
Arizona’s Pure Comparative Negligence Rule
Arizona’s version of the law is more favorable to injury victims than in many other states. Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, Arizona follows a pure comparative negligence model, which allows a person to seek damages even if they were 99% at fault for the incident.
While the amount of compensation is reduced based on your percentage of fault, you are not barred from recovering damages—even in high-fault scenarios.
This is especially important in complex accidents, like:
- Multi-vehicle crashes
- Commercial truck accidents
- Dog bite incidents involving shared control or provocation
- Premises liability cases (e.g., slip and falls)
How Is Fault Determined?
Assigning fault is a nuanced process involving:
- Police reports
- Eyewitness statements
- Surveillance footage
- Expert opinions
- Accident reconstructions
- Physical evidence (e.g., damage to vehicles, skid marks)
Insurance companies often conduct their own investigations—and may attempt to assign more blame to you to reduce their payout. That’s why it’s important to keep thorough records, avoid admitting fault, and consider getting legal guidance before giving statements.
Real-World Example
Let’s say you were rear-ended at a stoplight, but one of your brake lights was out. The other driver is mostly at fault, but the insurance company claims you’re 10% responsible for not maintaining your vehicle.
If your total damages are $50,000, you could still recover $45,000 after the 10% reduction.
Even if the fault is shared, you still have the right to pursue a claim and hold others accountable for their part in the incident.
How Comparative Negligence Affects Settlement Negotiations
If fault is disputed or shared, it can influence how insurers approach your case:
- They may offer lower settlements
- They may deny fault altogether
- They may delay the process to pressure you to settle early
Injury victims should be cautious about accepting quick offers. A settlement that doesn’t account for full medical treatment, lost wages, or future needs could leave you with uncovered costs down the line.
Before responding to insurance adjusters, consider speaking with a legal team familiar with Arizona’s personal injury landscape. You can contact Folger Law Firm to better understand your options.
Final Thoughts
Arizona’s comparative negligence law is designed to offer injured people a path to recovery—even when mistakes were made. Whether you were partially responsible or believe the other party is fully at fault, understanding your legal rights is the first step in seeking fair compensation.
If you’ve been injured in Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale, Peoria, or Tempe, and fault is in question, don’t navigate the system alone. Reach out to Folger Law Firm to discuss your case and get clarity on your next steps.
