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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-682 (2026)

Limitation

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

The previously existing common law of products liability is modified only to the extent specifically stated in this article and section 12-551.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1983–2009 · leading case: Bridgestone/Firestone North Am. Tire, L.L.C. v. A.P.S. Rent-A-Car & Leasing, Inc., 88 P.3d 572 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bridgestone/Firestone North Am. Tire, L.L.C. v. A.P.S. Rent-A-Car & Leasing, Inc., 88 P.3d 572 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “¶48 In support of a contrary conclusion, Bridgestone argues that we should superimpose the various common law principles discussed above, including those embodied in Restatement § 57, on § 12-684 and interpret and apply the statute consistently with those principles. According…”
Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 (Ariz. 2009). · cites it 2× “2d at 1062 (noting that § 12-682(2) has "both procedural and substantive aspects"); cf.”
Jordan v. Sunnyslope Appliance Propane & Plumbing Supplies Co., 660 P.2d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “Finally, our legislature in adopting § 402A by enacting A.R.S. § 12-682, has enacted a two-year statute of limitations.”
Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 786 P.2d 939 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 12-683, pertaining to the so-called “state of the art” defense, alteration or modification as a defense, and abuse of the product); provide for indemnification between manufacturers and sellers (A.”
Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc., 684 P.2d 888 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “The defense of assumption of risk is still available as an affirmative defense in a products liability case, when the cause of action accrued after 1978, by virtue of A.R.S. § 12-682 which states: “The previously existing common law of products liability is modified only to the…”
Antone v. Greater Arizona Auto Auction, Inc., 155 P.3d 1074 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “However, A.R.S. § 12-682 provides: "The previously existing common law of products liability is modified only to the extent specifically stated in this article and [the statute of limitations in A.”
Salt River Proj. Agric. Improvement & Power Dist. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 861 P.2d 668 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “§§ 12-542,12-551, and 12-681 through 12-686, do not evidence such a legislative intent, and A.R.S. § 12-682 appears to preserve the defense by providing that “[t]he previously existing common law of products liability is modified only to the extent specifically stated in this…”
Bridgestone Firestone North Am. Tire v. A.P.S. Rent a Car & Leasing (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “According to Bridgestone, “[t]he scope of a manufacturer’s indemnity obligation under [§] 12-684 must be construed in light of common-law rules of indemnity.”
Antone v. Greater Arizona Auto Auction, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “However, A.R.S. § 12-682 provides: “The previously existing common law of products liability is modified only to the extent specifically stated in this article and [the statute of limitations in A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-682(2) — 1 case
Seisinger v. Siebel, 203 P.3d 483 (Ariz. 2009). “2d at 1062 (noting that § 12-682(2) has "both procedural and substantive aspects"); cf.”
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.