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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2509 (2026)

Scope of contribution and comparative negligence

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

A. The right to contribution under sections 12-2501 through 12-2504 applies to all tortfeasors whose liability is based on negligence, strict liability in tort or any product liability action, as defined in section 12-681, including warranty.

B. If an action involves claims for relief alleging both negligence and strict liability in tort, and if section 12-2505 is applied with respect to the negligence claims for relief, the reduction in damages under section 12-2505 shall be applied to the damages awarded against all defendants, except that contributory negligence, as distinguished from assumption of risk, is not a defense to a claim alleging strict liability in tort, including any product liability action, as defined in section 12-681, except claims alleging negligence.

C. For purposes of section 12-2502, section 12-2503, subsection F and section 12-2505 with respect to cases involving assumption of risk, the relative degree of fault of a person strictly liable in tort is the defect causing injury to the claimant. Among two or more persons strictly liable in tort who are entitled to claim contribution against each other, the relative degree of fault of each is the degree to which each contributed to the defect causing injury to the claimant.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: State Farm Ins. Companies v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 172 P.3d 410 (Ariz. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 172 P.3d 410 (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 16× “¶ 22 State Farm also argues that A.R.S. § 12-2509 contemplates that joint and several liability remains the rule in strict products liability actions.”
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 904 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 10× “This argument is based on the interpretation given § 12-2509(B) by the Gibbs majority. Section 12-2509(B) provides: If an action involves claims for relief alleging both negligence and strict liability in tort, and if § 12-2505 [comparative negligence] is applied with respect to…”
John Munic Enter., Inc. v. Laos, 326 P.3d 279 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “” AR.S. § 12-2509(A). *16 Section 12-2506(A) sets a default rule that in “personal injury, property damage or wrongful death” actions liability is several and “in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault.”
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co., 868 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “In this case, section 12-2509 was inapplicable because there were no negligence claims, only strict liability claims.”
Donze v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 800 S.E.2d 479 (S.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-2509 (stating a plaintiffs comparative negligence “is not a defense to a claim alleging strict liability in tort, including any product liability action .”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 861 P.2d 668 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “§ 12-2505 the language of article 18, § 5 that both defenses shall “in all cases” be left to the jury; provides specifically in A.R.S. § 12-2509(A) that the right of contribution applies to “strict liability in tort or any product liability action, as defined in § 12-681”; and…”
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., 842 P.2d 1355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 12-2501 to § 12-2509. The supreme court ruled that General Electric could name the employer as a nonparty at fault for purposes of apportioning damages.”
Mott's Inc. of Mississippi v. Coco's Fam. Restaurant, 762 P.2d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “Under A.R.S. § 12-2509, the trial court is required to instruct the jury on contribution between joint tortfeasors i/-there is evidence that two or more tortfeasors contributed to the defect.”
Svetz for Svetz v. Land Tool Co., 513 A.2d 403 (Pa. 1986). “See: Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-2509 (Supp.1984).”
Shelby v. Action Scaffolding, Inc., 827 P.2d 462 (Ariz. 1992). · cites it 2× “Shelby derives support for this argument from A.R.S. § 12-2509(B), which provides that “contributory negligence .”
Bishop v. Pecanic, 975 P.2d 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “section 12-2509(A) (1994) specifies the actions to which sections 12-2501 through 12-2504 apply, and intentional torts are not included: A.”
State Farm v. Premier Manufactured Sys. (Ariz. 2007). · cites it 11× “” A reading of the statute requiring joint and several liability in all cases covered by § 12-2509 would render § 12-2506 a dead letter.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2509(0) — 1 case
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 172 P.3d 410 (Ariz. 2007). “¶ 22 State Farm also argues that A.R.S. § 12-2509 contemplates that joint and several liability remains the rule in strict products liability actions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2509(A) — 6 cases
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 172 P.3d 410 (Ariz. 2007). “¶ 22 State Farm also argues that A.R.S. § 12-2509 contemplates that joint and several liability remains the rule in strict products liability actions.”
John Munic Enter., Inc. v. Laos, 326 P.3d 279 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “” AR.S. § 12-2509(A). *16 Section 12-2506(A) sets a default rule that in “personal injury, property damage or wrongful death” actions liability is several and “in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault.”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 861 P.2d 668 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 12-2505 the language of article 18, § 5 that both defenses shall “in all cases” be left to the jury; provides specifically in A.R.S. § 12-2509(A) that the right of contribution applies to “strict liability in tort or any product liability action, as defined in § 12-681”; and…”
Bishop v. Pecanic, 975 P.2d 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “section 12-2509(A) (1994) specifies the actions to which sections 12-2501 through 12-2504 apply, and intentional torts are not included: A.”
Mott's Inc. of Mississippi v. Coco's Fam. Restaurant, 762 P.2d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “Under A.R.S. § 12-2509, the trial court is required to instruct the jury on contribution between joint tortfeasors i/-there is evidence that two or more tortfeasors contributed to the defect.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2509(B) — 3 cases
Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 904 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1995). “This argument is based on the interpretation given § 12-2509(B) by the Gibbs majority. Section 12-2509(B) provides: If an action involves claims for relief alleging both negligence and strict liability in tort, and if § 12-2505 [comparative negligence] is applied with respect to…”
Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co., 868 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “In this case, section 12-2509 was inapplicable because there were no negligence claims, only strict liability claims.”
Shelby v. Action Scaffolding, Inc., 827 P.2d 462 (Ariz. 1992). “Shelby derives support for this argument from A.R.S. § 12-2509(B), which provides that “contributory negligence .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2509(C) — 4 cases
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Premier Manufactured Sys., Inc., 172 P.3d 410 (Ariz. 2007). “¶ 22 State Farm also argues that A.R.S. § 12-2509 contemplates that joint and several liability remains the rule in strict products liability actions.”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 861 P.2d 668 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 12-2505 the language of article 18, § 5 that both defenses shall “in all cases” be left to the jury; provides specifically in A.R.S. § 12-2509(A) that the right of contribution applies to “strict liability in tort or any product liability action, as defined in § 12-681”; and…”
Mott's Inc. of Mississippi v. Coco's Fam. Restaurant, 762 P.2d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “Under A.R.S. § 12-2509, the trial court is required to instruct the jury on contribution between joint tortfeasors i/-there is evidence that two or more tortfeasors contributed to the defect.”
State Farm v. Premier Manufactured Sys. (Ariz. 2007). “” A reading of the statute requiring joint and several liability in all cases covered by § 12-2509 would render § 12-2506 a dead letter.”
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.