Partly at Fault in Arizona: Can You Still Recover Damages?

Can you still recover if the accident was partly your fault?

Yes. Arizona's comparative negligence statute says that where a jury applies contributory negligence or assumption of risk, the claimant's action is not barred. The damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant's share of fault instead. Being partly to blame lowers the number. It does not end the claim.

That is a different answer from the one many people expect, and it is worth knowing before an insurer's assessment of your fault talks you out of the question entirely.

What does the statute actually say?

The operative language is short enough to read in full.

A.R.S. § 12-2505(A) provides that the defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk is in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury. It continues:

If the jury applies either defense, 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, if any.

Three things in that sentence do most of the work.

"Is not barred." The claim survives. This is the whole of the difference between the Arizona rule and a rule that cuts a claimant off.

"In proportion." The reduction tracks the claimant's share. It is arithmetic applied to the full damages figure, not a separate judgment about whether the claim deserves to go forward.

"Which is a proximate cause." Only fault that actually contributed to the injury or death counts against the claimant. Careless conduct that had nothing to do with what happened is not what the statute is measuring.

Subsection B adds a definition that catches people out. "Claimant's fault" includes fault imputed or attributed to a claimant by operation of law. So a share of fault can land on a claimant through a legal relationship rather than through anything the claimant personally did.

Is there a percentage that bars you completely?

Not in this statute. There is no line in § 12-2505 at which a claimant stops being able to recover.

This is the part people most often have backwards, and usually the reason is that they have read a rule belonging to somewhere else. Comparative negligence is a matter of state law, and other states set their own terms, including versions where a claimant past a fixed percentage recovers nothing. Arizona's statute names no such threshold. The label usually given to that arrangement is pure comparative negligence, and it follows directly from the text: damages reduced in proportion, action not barred, no percentage named.

Bottom line: a high share of fault is expensive, not disqualifying. A claimant found mostly responsible faces a correspondingly large reduction, and the statute still describes a reduction rather than a bar.

The practical consequence is about whether a claim is worth bringing, not whether it is permitted. Those are different questions and they get answered by different people.

When does your own conduct bar you entirely?

The statute names one situation, and it is narrow.

Section 12-2505(A) closes by providing 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.

Read that against the rest of the section. Ordinary negligence by the claimant produces a proportional reduction. Conduct that is intentional, wilful, or wanton is treated as a different category entirely, and the proportional treatment does not apply to it. The statute draws its hard line at the claimant's state of mind rather than at a percentage.

Who decides how the fault gets divided?

The jury, and the point is made twice.

Section 12-2505(A) says the defense is "in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury." Article 18, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution says it in nearly the same words:

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.

Notice also how the statute is conditioned. It describes what happens "if the jury applies either defense." The statute does not instruct that a claimant's fault must reduce the award. It says what follows when the jury applies the defense, and leaves the application to the jury.

That matters for how you should read a fault percentage that arrives in the post. An insurance company's allocation is its own evaluation of a claim. It is a position taken in a negotiation, not a finding. Most claims do settle without a jury seeing them, so that number often becomes the practical outcome, and it is still worth knowing what it is and is not.

Disputes about how an insurer handled a claim, as opposed to who caused the accident, are an insurance question rather than a fault question.

How does fault get split among several defendants?

Separately and proportionally, which changes what a claim is actually worth.

A.R.S. § 12-2506(A) abolished joint and several liability in most cases. The liability of each defendant "is several only and is not joint." Each defendant is 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. The trier of fact multiplies the total recoverable damages by each defendant's percentage, and that product is the maximum recoverable against that defendant.

Subsection D names the exceptions, where a party is responsible for another person's fault or proportionate share:

Subsection C adds that the relative degree of fault of the claimant and of all defendants and nonparties is determined and apportioned as a whole at one time by the trier of fact. It is one allocation covering everybody, not a series of separate contests.

Bottom line: two reductions can apply to the same claim. The claimant's own share comes off the total under § 12-2505, and what remains is then divided among defendants under § 12-2506, with each responsible for their own portion. A defendant found 15 percent at fault owes 15 percent, whatever the others can or cannot pay.

Can the other side blame someone who was never sued?

Yes, in defined circumstances, and this is the provision that surprises claimants most.

Under § 12-2506(B), in assessing percentages of fault the trier of fact considers the fault of all persons who contributed to the alleged injury, death, or property damage, regardless of whether that person was, or could have been, named as a party. Fault of a nonparty may be considered in two situations:

• The claimant entered into a settlement agreement with that nonparty
• The defending party gives notice before trial, in accordance with requirements established by court rule, that a nonparty was wholly or partially at fault

The statute is equally clear about what a nonparty assessment is not. It says assessments of percentages of fault for nonparties are used only as a vehicle for accurately determining the fault of the named parties, that the assessment does not subject any nonparty to liability in this or any other action, and that it may not be introduced as evidence of liability in any action.

So fault assigned to an absent person reduces what the defendants in front of you owe, and nobody collects it from the absent person. That is the practical weight of the provision, and it is why the notice requirement and its deadline are not a formality.

What counts as fault?

Broader than carelessness behind the wheel.

Section 12-2506(F)(2) defines "fault" as an actionable breach of legal duty, act, or omission proximately causing or contributing to injury or damages sustained by a person seeking recovery, and lists what that includes:

• Negligence in all of its degrees
• Contributory negligence
• Assumption of risk
• Strict liability
• Breach of express or implied warranty of a product
• Products liability
• Misuse, modification or abuse of a product

That last group matters in a case about a product rather than a collision. How a person used the thing that injured them is inside the statutory definition of fault, which means it can be allocated as a percentage the same way any other conduct can.

When do people talk to an attorney about this?

Usually at the point an insurer puts a fault percentage in writing and the person cannot tell whether it is defensible.

Three patterns come up. The percentage assigned looks untethered to what happened. There are several potentially responsible parties and it is unclear how the split would fall under § 12-2506. Or a settlement with one party is on the table, and the effect that has on fault allocation against everyone else is not obvious from the paperwork.

All three are personal injury questions. Deadlines matter alongside them, and they are covered separately in the guide to Arizona filing deadlines linked below.

What this page cannot tell you is what share of fault you carry. That is a question of fact, the statute and the constitution both assign it to a jury, and it turns on evidence about your specific accident that no page can see.

Frequently asked questions

Can you recover damages in Arizona if you were partly at fault for the accident?

Yes. A.R.S. 12-2505 says that if 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. Being partly to blame reduces the award rather than ending the claim.

Is Arizona a pure comparative negligence state?

That is the label usually given to the arrangement in A.R.S. 12-2505, and it follows from the text. The statute reduces damages in proportion to the claimant's fault and states that the action is not barred. It sets no percentage at which a claimant stops being able to recover, which is what distinguishes a pure rule from a modified one.

Can you still recover in Arizona if you were more than 50 percent at fault?

The statute contains no fifty percent line. A.R.S. 12-2505 says the claimant's action is not barred and directs that damages be reduced in proportion to the claimant's relative degree of fault, without naming any percentage at which recovery ends. The reduction at a high share of fault can be severe, but it is a reduction rather than a bar.

When can your own fault bar a claim completely in Arizona?

The statute names one situation. 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. That is conduct well beyond ordinary carelessness, and the statute treats it differently from negligence of any degree.

Who decides what percentage of fault you carry in Arizona?

The jury. A.R.S. 12-2505 says the defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk is in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury. Article 18, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution says the same thing in nearly identical words, so it is a constitutional allocation rather than only a statutory one.

Does a defendant who is only partly at fault pay the whole award in Arizona?

Generally no. A.R.S. 12-2506 provides that the liability of each defendant is several only and is not joint, and that each defendant is liable only for damages in direct proportion to that defendant's percentage of fault. The statute lists narrow exceptions, including parties acting in concert, an agent or servant relationship, and duties created by the Federal Employers' Liability Act.

Can a defendant blame someone who was never sued in Arizona?

Yes, within limits. Under A.R.S. 12-2506 the trier of fact considers the fault of all persons who contributed to the injury, whether or not they were named as a party. Fault of a nonparty may be considered if the claimant settled with them or if the defending party gives notice before trial in accordance with court rule. The assessment does not subject the nonparty to any liability.

Does an insurance adjuster's fault percentage decide the case in Arizona?

No. A percentage an insurer assigns while evaluating a claim is that company's own assessment. Under A.R.S. 12-2505 and the Arizona Constitution, the division of fault is a question of fact for the jury. Most claims settle without a jury ever seeing them, so the number in a letter often becomes the practical outcome, but it is not a legal determination.

Sources

• A.R.S. 12-2505, comparative negligence; definition · Arizona State Legislature · checked 2026-09-18
• A.R.S. 12-2506, joint and several liability abolished; exception; apportionment of degrees of fault; definitions · Arizona State Legislature · checked 2026-09-18
• Arizona Constitution, Article 18, Section 5, contributory negligence and assumption of risk · Arizona State Legislature · checked 2026-09-18

Keep reading

• How Long Do You Have to Sue Someone in Arizona?Arizona sets a different deadline for each kind of claim, from one year to six. The periods by claim type, and the 180 day trap for suing a public entity.
• Can a Creditor Take Your House in Arizona?Arizona's homestead exemption protects home equity from forced sale automatically. What it covers, the four debts it does not stop, and how a sale works.
• How Much of Your Paycheck Can Be Garnished in Arizona?Arizona caps ordinary wage garnishment at 10 percent of disposable earnings, not the 25 percent most sources quote. The formula, and the debts it excludes.