Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2502 (2026)

Pro rata shares

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In determining the pro rata share of tortfeasors in the entire liability:

1. Their relative degrees of fault are the basis for allocation.

2. If equity requires, the collective liability of some as a group constitutes a single share.

3. Principles of equity applicable to contribution generally apply.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1985–2007 · leading case: Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., Inc., 701 P.2d 1182 (Ariz. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., Inc., 701 P.2d 1182 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 12-2502 provides in relevant part: “§ 12-2502 Pro rata shares “In determining the pro rata share of tortfeasors in the entire liability: 1.”
Dietz v. Gen. Elec. Co., 821 P.2d 166 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-2502. 3 . At first glance, the question certified is somewhat ambiguous because it refers to "joint tortfeasors.”
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., 842 P.2d 1355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Redetermination of contribution shares On motion made not later than one year after a judgment imposing joint and several liability and determining contribution rights is entered, the court shall determine whether all or part of a tortfeasor’s contribution share under § 12-2502…”
Gunnell v. Arizona Pub. Serv. Co., 46 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2002). · cites it 2× “Thus, the court should ordinarily apply the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-2502, the portion of UCATA that enacts a comparative negligence regime.”
Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 919 P.2d 1381 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 12-2502 (1994). Thus, the allocation of fault for purposes of obtaining contribution in a joint liability case is no different than the allocation of fault in a case of several-only liability.”
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 172 P.3d 410 (Ariz. 2007). “§ 12-2502(1). ¶ 10 The 1984 legislation expressly provided that the right to contribution applied to defendants held strictly liable in tort for distribution of a defective product.”
Shelby v. Action Scaffolding, Inc., 827 P.2d 462 (Ariz. 1992). “In 1982, Senate Bill 1011 was introduced____ However, the Uniform Act was substituted for the original bill in the Senate along with the language of § 12-2501(H), and the House added provisions similar to §§ 12-2502 (pro rata shares based on degrees of fault), 12-2503(F) (trier…”
State Farm v. Premier Manufactured Sys. (Ariz. 2007). “§ 12-2502(1). ¶10 The 1984 legislation expressly provided that the right to contribution applied to defendants held strictly liable in 1 The 1984 Arizona bill drew from both the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act of 1955 and the Uniform Comparative Fault Act of 1977,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2502(1) — 3 cases
Kriz v. Buckeye Petroleum Co., Inc., 701 P.2d 1182 (Ariz. 1985). “A.R.S. § 12-2502 provides in relevant part: “§ 12-2502 Pro rata shares “In determining the pro rata share of tortfeasors in the entire liability: 1.”
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 172 P.3d 410 (Ariz. 2007). “§ 12-2502(1). ¶ 10 The 1984 legislation expressly provided that the right to contribution applied to defendants held strictly liable in tort for distribution of a defective product.”
State Farm v. Premier Manufactured Sys. (Ariz. 2007). “§ 12-2502(1). ¶10 The 1984 legislation expressly provided that the right to contribution applied to defendants held strictly liable in 1 The 1984 Arizona bill drew from both the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act of 1955 and the Uniform Comparative Fault Act of 1977,…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2502(3) — 1 case
Dietz v. Gen. Elec. Co., 821 P.2d 166 (Ariz. 1991). “A.R.S. § 12-2502. 3 . At first glance, the question certified is somewhat ambiguous because it refers to "joint tortfeasors.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.