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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-611 (2026)

Liability

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

When death of a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action to recover damages in respect thereof, then, and in every such case, the person who or the corporation which would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured, and although the death was caused under such circumstances as amount in law to murder in the first or second degree or manslaughter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 112 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case: Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 36× “*1262 A.R.S. § 12-611 (emphasis added). The Arizona Legislature has not defined the meaning of "person" under the statute.”
Summerfield v. Superior Court, Maricopa Cty., 698 P.2d 712 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 16× “2d 706 (1974), a case which held: 1) that no common law right existed for recovery, and 2) that a viable fetus was not a “person” as that word is used in A.R.S. § 12-611, the statute which authorizes the institution of a damage action against one whose “wrongful act, neglect or…”
Vo v. Superior Court, 836 P.2d 408 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “Although no Arizona appellate case has ever addressed the issue whether the term “person” within the first degree murder statute includes an unborn fetus, the Arizona Supreme Court has held that a stillborn, viable fetus is a “person” entitled to recover tort damages for its…”
Est. of braden/gabaldon v. State, 266 P.3d 349 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 6× “¶5 We are not called on today to consider whether the state may be liable under a common law negligence theory or under Arizona’s wrongful death statute, A.R.S. § 12-611. Nor do we consider the potential liability of individual state employees.”
Fernandez v. Romo, 646 P.2d 878 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 8× “" A.R.S. § 12-611. The defendant Romo, as representative of the estate of Joseph N.”
Schoenrock v. Cigna Health Plan of Arizona, Inc., 715 P.2d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 16× “The issue is whether a decedent’s settlement and release of his personal injury claim prior to death extinguishes any claim for wrongful death under A.R.S. § 12-611 for recovery of the survivor’s damages.”
The Est. of Josefa U. Decamacho v. La Solana Care & Rehab, Inc., 316 P.3d 607 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “§ 12-611, provides in pertinent part: *24 When death of a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect or default, and the act, neglect or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action to recover damages in respect thereof,…”
Galloway v. Vanderpool, 69 P.3d 23 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-611 (1992). 6 . Section 23-1024 provides: A.”
Gotbaum Ex Rel. Gotbaum v. City of Phoenix, 617 F. Supp. 2d 878 (D. Ariz. 2008). · cites it 4× “Defendants contend that the only Arizona statute mentioned in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, and thus the only Arizona statute that could possibly apply in this case, is the Arizona wrongful death statute found at A.R.S. § 12-611. See Dkt. # 7 ¶ 1. This argument…”
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co., 950 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 7× “We next observe that while a wrongful death action is an independent claim for damages sustained by the decedent’s survivors, Frongillo v.”
Vasquez v. State, 206 P.3d 753 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Before filing her complaint, Vasquez timely "filed" and served a notice of claim against the state, notifying it that she had a claim for wrongful death pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-611 and for "violation of her son's Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.”
Brown v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 667 P.2d 750 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “The trial court entered an order amending her complaint as follows: The second sentence of Count I, Paragraph I, is deleted and replaced with the following sentence: " Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-611 in her capacity as personal representative for the…”
Show all 112 citing cases →
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.