In Arizona, your share of fault reduces your recovery, but it doesn't erase it. Under Arizona's pure comparative fault rule, someone who is 30% at fault recovers 70% of their damages, someone who is 70% at fault still recovers 30%, and the claim stays alive at any percentage short of 100%. In Nevada, the same 70% finding would mean nothing, because Nevada bars recovery once your fault exceeds the other side's.
That difference changes how Arizona cases are valued, negotiated, and settled. Here's how pure comparative fault works, what it looks like at 30%, 50%, and 70% fault, and the Arizona rules that can still cut a claim down.
What Is Pure Comparative Fault in Arizona?
It's the rule that splits responsibility by percentage instead of all-or-nothing. Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, if a jury finds you partly at fault, your action is not barred, and your full damages are reduced in proportion to your share of fault. The statute also says contributory negligence is always a question of fact for the jury.
Arizona is also an at-fault state, not one of the no-fault states the Insurance Information Institute lists, so the driver who caused a crash is responsible for the damages, subject to these fault percentages.
What Does Pure Comparative Fault Look Like at 30%, 50%, and 70%?
Here's a hypothetical claim with $100,000 in total damages, comparing Arizona with Nevada's 51% bar under NRS 41.141:
| Your Share of Fault | Arizona (Pure Comparative Fault) | Nevada (51% Bar) |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | $100,000 | $100,000 |
| 30% | $70,000 | $70,000 |
| 50% | $50,000 | $50,000 |
| 51% | $49,000 | $0 |
| 70% | $30,000 | $0 |
| 90% | $10,000 | $0 |
At 30% fault
Say you were speeding slightly when another driver ran a stop sign in Phoenix, and a jury splits fault 70/30. You recover $70,000 in Arizona. You'd recover the same in Nevada. At this level, the two states are identical.
At 50% fault
Two drivers change lanes into each other on the I-10, and fault is split evenly. You recover $50,000 in both states. Nevada allows recovery at exactly 50%, so the states still match.
At 70% fault
You made an unsafe left turn, but the oncoming driver was going well over the limit and texting. A jury finds you 70% at fault. In Arizona, you still recover $30,000. In Nevada, you recover nothing. For someone with $300,000 in medical bills and lost income, that's the difference between $90,000 and zero.
So the "same facts, worth nothing in Nevada" contrast is real, but only once your share of fault goes above 50%. For more on the Nevada side, here's how fault is determined in Nevada.
How Does Pure Comparative Fault Change Settlement Negotiations?
It changes what the fight is about. In Nevada, a defense argument that you were 51% at fault is a knockout punch. In Arizona, it's a discount. That shifts negotiations in a few ways:
- Every percentage point is money. On a $100,000 claim, each 10% of fault is $10,000. Negotiations often become a debate over percentages rather than whether the claim exists at all.
- Claims with shared fault still have value. Insurers can't dismiss a claim just because you made a mistake too, so cases that wouldn't be worth pursuing in Nevada can settle in Arizona.
- Evidence matters at every level. Photos, video, and witness statements move percentages, and moving from 60% to 40% fault on a $200,000 claim is worth $40,000.
What Arizona Rules Can Still Reduce or Bar Your Recovery?
Pure comparative fault is generous, but several other Arizona rules shape the final number.
Can a defendant blame someone who isn't in the lawsuit?
Yes. Under A.R.S. § 12-2506, Arizona abolished joint and several liability in most cases. Each defendant pays only its own percentage of fault, and a jury can assign fault to nonparties if the defendant gives proper notice before trial. If an uninsured driver who fled the scene is assigned 40% of the fault, that 40% may be uncollectible. The Arizona Law Review noted when the law passed that it increases the chance injured people go partly uncompensated when one wrongdoer can't pay, and a later Arizona Law Review note described how that burden shifted from defendants to plaintiffs.
What if you had been drinking?
That can end the claim. Under A.R.S. § 12-711, a jury may find the defendant not liable if the claimant was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and, as a result, was at least 50% responsible for the accident. It's a narrow exception to pure comparative fault, but an important one.
Does not wearing a seat belt reduce an Arizona claim?
It can. In Law v. Superior Court (1988), the Arizona Supreme Court allowed juries to consider seat belt nonuse to reduce damages for injuries it caused or made worse. Nevada goes the other way. Under NRS 484D.495, a seat belt violation can't be considered as negligence or causation in a Nevada civil case.
Is there a deadline?
Yes. Arizona generally allows two years under A.R.S. § 12-542 to file a personal injury lawsuit. The Arizona courts' statutes of limitation guide lists shorter deadlines for some claims, including one year for liability created by statute.
Does Pure Comparative Fault Apply to Slip and Falls Too?
Yes. A.R.S. § 12-2505 applies to Arizona personal injury claims generally, not just car accidents. A shopper who was looking at a phone when they slipped may have their award reduced, but not eliminated. For store falls specifically, the mode of operation rule in Arizona can help establish the store's share of fault in the first place.
How Can Meesha Moulton Law Help With a Shared-Fault Claim?
In Arizona, a claim where you share some blame is still a claim, and the percentage is where the value is won or lost. Meesha Moulton personally reviews every case, and consultations are free for personal injury matters, so you can find out what your case may be worth before an insurer assigns you a percentage.
Learn more about working with a Phoenix car accident lawyer, explore the firm's personal injury practice, or request a free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions About Arizona Pure Comparative Fault
Is Arizona a pure comparative negligence state?
Yes. Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, an injured person's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but the claim isn't barred no matter how high that percentage is. The main exceptions are claims where the injured person acted intentionally, willfully, or wantonly, and the intoxication defense under A.R.S. § 12-711.
Can I recover damages if I was mostly at fault in Arizona?
Yes, in most cases. If you were 70% at fault, you can still recover 30% of your damages. That's different from Nevada and most other nearby states, where recovery is barred once your fault reaches 51%. The exception is if you were intoxicated and at least 50% responsible, which can bar the claim.
What is the difference between pure and modified comparative negligence?
Under pure comparative negligence, you recover damages reduced by your share of fault at any percentage. Under modified comparative negligence, like Nevada's 51% bar, you recover nothing once your fault goes above a threshold. The two systems produce the same result until your share of fault exceeds 50%.
What happens if both drivers are at fault in Arizona?
Each driver's recovery is reduced by their own share of fault. If you were 40% at fault with $100,000 in damages, you can recover $60,000. The other driver can also make a claim against you for their damages, reduced by their 60% share.
Is Arizona an at-fault state for car accidents?
Yes. Arizona is an at-fault state, so the driver who caused the crash is responsible for the other driver's losses, usually through liability insurance. Fault is then split by percentage under Arizona's pure comparative fault rule.
Can a defendant blame someone else to lower what they pay?
Yes. Arizona generally holds each defendant liable only for its own percentage of fault, and a jury can assign fault to nonparties, such as a driver who fled, if the defendant gives proper notice. That can reduce what you collect from the defendants who are in the case.
