If you’ve been injured in an accident in Arizona, one of the first questions that may come up is: What if I was partly to blame? Whether it was a car crash, a slip and fall, or another type of personal injury, Arizona law recognizes that more than one person can share responsibility for an accident, and that’s where the concept of comparative negligence (or contributory negligence) comes into play.
With over 25 years of experience, Jeff GOULD Law is the Attorney in YOUR Corner, and we know how to navigate the complexities of shared, comparative negligence in personal injury cases. When insurance companies try to shift the blame, we help you understand your rights, protect your claim, and pursue the maximum compensation you deserve.
Let’s break down what comparative negligence means and how it could affect your ability to recover compensation.
Table of Contents
What Is Comparative Negligence?
Defined by ARS §12-2505, Comparative Negligence is a rule of law for determining: how much responsibility each party has for an accident; and, how that responsibility directly impacts compensation. In Arizona, damages can still be recovered even if you were partly at fault for the accident; however, the compensation you may be entitled to can and will be reduced by your percentage of fault.
Example:
Let’s say you were in a car accident and a jury finds you to be 20% at fault. If your total damages amount to $50,000, you are still entitled to recover an award of 80%, or $40,000.
Arizona Follows a “Pure” Comparative Negligence System
Some states use a “modified” comparative negligence rule, which bars recovery if you’re more than 50% at fault. Arizona, however, follows the pure comparative negligence model. This means:
- Even if you’re 99% at fault, you can still recover 1% of your damages.
- Your percentage of fault directly reduces the amount of compensation you’re eligible to receive.
This law ensures that even partially responsible parties have access to some compensation, an especially important safeguard in complex cases.
Exceptions to the Comparative Negligence Law
Arizona uses comparative negligence in most personal injury cases, but a few exceptions exist. For example, in situations where one person is legally responsible for someone else’s actions (like an employer for an employee), different rules may apply under ARS §12-2506.
Also, if someone acted in a way that was extremely reckless or intentionally harmful, they may lose the right to claim damages under comparative negligence. The fact that there are exceptions to this law can make things confusing, which is why it’s essential to speak with an experienced attorney who can help you understand how the law applies to your specific personal injury case.
How Is Fault Determined?
Determining fault isn’t always a cut-and-dry formula. It may involve:
- Police reports
- Eyewitness statements
- Video footage
- Expert testimony
- Accident reconstruction
- Medical records
Because fault percentages can significantly affect the outcome of your case, it’s essential to have an experienced personal injury Attorney in YOUR Corner, who can investigate thoroughly and advocate on your behalf.
Why It Matters to Your Case
If the insurance company can prove you were even slightly responsible for the accident, they will likely try to reduce your compensation, sometimes unfairly. Knowing your rights under Arizona’s comparative negligence laws can help you make informed decisions and avoid costly mistakes.
Injured and Not Sure Who’s at Fault?
At Jeff Gould Law, we help clients understand where they stand, even in situations where fault is shared. If you’ve been injured and aren’t sure what your next step should be, we’re here to provide guidance, protect your rights, and fight for the compensation you deserve.
Don’t DELAY: Call Jeff GOULD Law, the Attorney In YOUR Corner – TODAY!
DISCLAIMER: The information on this blog/site is not intended to be legal advice. It is for general informational use only. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your situation. Further, this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.