Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2505 (2026)
Comparative negligence; definition
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. 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. 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. 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.
B. In this section, "claimant's fault" includes the fault imputed or attributed to a claimant by operation of law, if any.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 904 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1995).
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 904 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1995). “[7] Indeed, ATLA urges us to hold both statutes A.R.S. §§ 12-2505 and 12-2506 unconstitutional.”
Williams v. Thude, 934 P.2d 1349 (Ariz. 1997). “In an attempt to recover their victory, defendants assert that the instruction given by the court was proper under A.R.S. § 12-2505(A), which provides: The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk is in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be…”
Law v. Superior Court of State of Ariz., 755 P.2d 1135 (Ariz. 1988). “Nor did the comparative negligence statute (A.R.S. § 12-2505) limit the jury's power to reduce damages solely to cases of contributory negligence or assumption of the risk.”
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight Sys., Inc., 717 P.2d 434 (Ariz. 1986). “A.R.S. § 12-2505, for the first time in Arizona, provides for comparative negligence.”
Franklin v. Clemett, 382 P.3d 802 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “237, § 1 (codified at A.R.S. § 12-2505 (2016)). In so doing, the Legislature “strip[ped] contributory negligence of its obnoxious common law consequences,” but retained the “idea of contributory fault.”
Wareing v. Falk, 897 P.2d 1381 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “Laws 237 (recited in the Historical and Statutory Notes to A.R.S. § 12-2505 (1994)). Additionally, section 12-2506(C), which was numbered as section 12-2506(A) in 1984, states: The relative degree of fault of the claimant, and the relative degrees of fault of all defendants .”
Bauer v. Crotty, 805 P.2d 392 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Crotty’s position was that this conduct contributed to Bauer’s injuries, and that Bauer was therefore precluded from any recovery by A.R.S. § 12-2505(A), which provides in part: “There is no right to comparative negligence in favor of any claimant who has intentionally, wilfully…”
Lerma v. Keck, 921 P.2d 28 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “See AR.S. § 12-2505(A) (“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.”
Englert v. Carondelet Health Network, 13 P.3d 763 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). “See A.R.S. § 12-2505(A) (comparative negligence reduces damages proportionate to degree of fault); Law v.”
Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 365 P.3d 944 (Ariz. 2016). “A.R.S. § 12-2505. Three years later, the legislature amended the Act by eliminating plaintiffs’ ability to recover jointly from any or all liable defendants.”
Shelby v. Action Scaffolding, Inc., 827 P.2d 462 (Ariz. 1992). “Should § 12-2504’s or § 12-2505’s Reduction Scheme be Applied First? This case requires us to decide whether the reduction scheme found in § 12-2504 or the one found in § 12-2505 should be applied first.”
Ritchie v. Krasner, 211 P.3d 1272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “” A.R.S. § 12-2505 (2003). The Arizona Constitution, however, leaves the issue solely within the jury’s discretion.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2505(A) — 35 cases
Williams v. Thude, 934 P.2d 1349 (Ariz. 1997). “In an attempt to recover their victory, defendants assert that the instruction given by the court was proper under A.R.S. § 12-2505(A), which provides: The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk is in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be…”
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 904 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1995). “[7] Indeed, ATLA urges us to hold both statutes A.R.S. §§ 12-2505 and 12-2506 unconstitutional.”
Franklin v. Clemett, 382 P.3d 802 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “237, § 1 (codified at A.R.S. § 12-2505 (2016)). In so doing, the Legislature “strip[ped] contributory negligence of its obnoxious common law consequences,” but retained the “idea of contributory fault.”
Bauer v. Crotty, 805 P.2d 392 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “Crotty’s position was that this conduct contributed to Bauer’s injuries, and that Bauer was therefore precluded from any recovery by A.R.S. § 12-2505(A), which provides in part: “There is no right to comparative negligence in favor of any claimant who has intentionally, wilfully…”
Wareing v. Falk, 897 P.2d 1381 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995). “Laws 237 (recited in the Historical and Statutory Notes to A.R.S. § 12-2505 (1994)). Additionally, section 12-2506(C), which was numbered as section 12-2506(A) in 1984, states: The relative degree of fault of the claimant, and the relative degrees of fault of all defendants .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2505(B) — 1 case
Shelby v. Action Scaffolding, Inc., 827 P.2d 462 (Ariz. 1992). “Should § 12-2504’s or § 12-2505’s Reduction Scheme be Applied First? This case requires us to decide whether the reduction scheme found in § 12-2504 or the one found in § 12-2505 should be applied first.”
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.