Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-683 (2026)

Affirmative defenses

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any product liability action, a defendant shall not be liable if the defendant proves that any of the following applies:

1. The defect in the product is alleged to result from inadequate design or fabrication, and if the plans or designs for the product or the methods and techniques of manufacturing, inspecting, testing and labeling the product conformed with the state of the art at the time the product was first sold by the defendant.

2. The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was an alteration or modification of the product that was not reasonably foreseeable, made by a person other than the defendant and subsequent to the time the product was first sold by the defendant.

3. The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was a use or consumption of the product that was for a purpose, in a manner or in an activity other than that which was reasonably foreseeable or was contrary to any express and adequate instructions or warnings appearing on or attached to the product or on its original container or wrapping, if the intended consumer knew or with the exercise of reasonable and diligent care should have known of such instructions or warnings.

4. The proximate cause of the incident or incidents giving rise to the action was the repeated consumption of a food product that is not defective and unreasonably dangerous if consumed in reasonable quantities.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 37 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 904 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 904 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 52× “Suppose further that plaintiff uses the handgun as a hammer to drive a nail rather than for the purpose for which it was intended. As the handle of the weapon strikes the nail, it fires and the plaintiff is injured.”

Gosewisch v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 737 P.2d 376 (Ariz. 1987). · cites it 25× “§ 12-683. Affirmative defenses. In any product liability action, a defendant shall not be liable if the defendant proves that any of the following apply: ****** (3) The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was a use or consumption of the product which was…”

Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co., 868 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 72× “" The text of section 12-683 has not been changed since Gosewisch was decided in 1987.”

Golonka v. Gen. Motors Corp., 65 P.3d 956 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “2d 376, 379 (1987) (superseded by A.R.S. § 12-683 (1992) with respect to affirmative defenses).”

Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd., 3 P.3d 1088 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 12× “" A.R.S. § 12-683(1) (1992). In this case, however, expert evidence was presented that, when the machine was first sold, (1) the machine did not meet ANSI standards, (2) it was not safe, and (3) alternative designs represented the accepted state of the art.”

Piper v. Bear Med. Sys., Inc., 883 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 7× “Section 12-683 establishes affirmative defenses that bar a manufacturer’s liability if the product conformed to the state of the art when sold, the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries was a misuse that was not reasonably foreseeable, or [t]he proximate cause of the…”

Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of Am., 837 P.2d 1143 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “§ 12-683(3) provides: The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was a use or consumption of the product which was for a purpose, in a manner or in an activity other than that which was reasonably foreseeable or was contrary to any express and adequate…”

Jordan v. Sunnyslope Appliance Propane & Plumbing Supplies Co., 660 P.2d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 12-683(2). Admittedly, the longer the product is in the marketplace, the greater the likelihood that it will be altered or modified.”

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 3× “” As noted in ¶ 32, supra, under common law, a manufacturer may be held strictly liable in tort only if its product is defective and unreasonably dangerous at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control.”

Torres v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 786 P.2d 939 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 12-684); regulate the contents of ad damnum clauses (A.R.S. § 12-685); and deal with evidentiary issues pertaining to remedial measures (A.”

Danny Crawford v. ITW Food Equip. Grp., LLC, 977 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2020). “, A.R.S. § 12-683; Neb. Rev. St. § 25-21, 182.”

Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 484 So. 2d 110 (La. 1986). “Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 12-683 (Supp.1980); N.”

Show all 37 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-683(1) — 9 cases

Golonka v. Gen. Motors Corp., 65 P.3d 956 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “2d 376, 379 (1987) (superseded by A.R.S. § 12-683 (1992) with respect to affirmative defenses).”

Anderson v. Nissei ASB MacH. Co., Ltd., 3 P.3d 1088 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “" A.R.S. § 12-683(1) (1992). In this case, however, expert evidence was presented that, when the machine was first sold, (1) the machine did not meet ANSI standards, (2) it was not safe, and (3) alternative designs represented the accepted state of the art.”

Brethauer v. Gen. Motors Corp., 211 P.3d 1176 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

Hohlenkamp v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 655 P.2d 32 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).

Piper v. Bear Med. Sys., Inc., 883 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “Section 12-683 establishes affirmative defenses that bar a manufacturer’s liability if the product conformed to the state of the art when sold, the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries was a misuse that was not reasonably foreseeable, or [t]he proximate cause of the…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-683(2) — 11 cases

Jordan v. Sunnyslope Appliance Propane & Plumbing Supplies Co., 660 P.2d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). “A.R.S. § 12-683(2). Admittedly, the longer the product is in the marketplace, the greater the likelihood that it will be altered or modified.”

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). “” As noted in ¶ 32, supra, under common law, a manufacturer may be held strictly liable in tort only if its product is defective and unreasonably dangerous at the time the product left the manufacturer’s control.”

Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co., 868 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “" The text of section 12-683 has not been changed since Gosewisch was decided in 1987.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-683(3) — 12 cases

Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 904 P.2d 861 (Ariz. 1995). “Suppose further that plaintiff uses the handgun as a hammer to drive a nail rather than for the purpose for which it was intended. As the handle of the weapon strikes the nail, it fires and the plaintiff is injured.”

Gosewisch v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 737 P.2d 376 (Ariz. 1987). “§ 12-683. Affirmative defenses. In any product liability action, a defendant shall not be liable if the defendant proves that any of the following apply: ****** (3) The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was a use or consumption of the product which was…”

Gibbs v. O'Malley Lumber Co., 868 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “" The text of section 12-683 has not been changed since Gosewisch was decided in 1987.”

Czarnecki v. Volkswagen of Am., 837 P.2d 1143 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “§ 12-683(3) provides: The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was a use or consumption of the product which was for a purpose, in a manner or in an activity other than that which was reasonably foreseeable or was contrary to any express and adequate…”

Cota v. Harley Davidson, a Div. of AMF, Inc., 684 P.2d 888 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-683(8) — 1 case

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.