A. In any civil action, the finder of fact may find the defendant not liable if the defendant proves that the claimant or, if the claimant is an heir or the estate of a deceased person, the decedent was attempting to commit, committing or immediately fleeing from a felony criminal act and as a result of that act, attempted act or flight the claimant or decedent was at least fifty per cent responsible for the accident or event that caused the claimant's or decedent's harm.
B. In any civil action, the finder of fact may find the defendant not liable if the defendant proves that the defendant did not act intentionally and that the claimant or, if the claimant is an heir or the estate of a deceased person, the decedent was attempting to commit, committing or immediately fleeing from a misdemeanor criminal act and as a result of that act, attempted act or flight the claimant or decedent was at least fifty per cent responsible for the accident or event that caused the claimant's or decedent's harm.
C. Notwithstanding subsection A or B of this section, in any civil action, the finder of fact may find the defendant not liable if the defendant proves that the defendant did not act intentionally and that the claimant or, if the claimant is an heir or the estate of a deceased person, the decedent was attempting to commit, committing or immediately fleeing from an act in violation of section 13-1802, subsection A, paragraph 7 or 8 and, as a result of that act, attempted act or flight, the claimant or decedent was in any way responsible for the accident or event that caused the claimant's or decedent's harm.
Notes of Decisions
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 141 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 20× “¶ 14 SDI argues, however, that even though Frank Hernandez’s conduct gives rise to the traditional common law defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk, the “same conduct also supports the statutory defense of A.R.S. § 12-712, [so] defendants are not hable for…”
Muscat v. Creative, 418 P.3d 967 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “¶21 Nor are we persuaded that affirming the dismissal of Muscat’s negligence claims runs counter to the intended application of A.R.S. § 12-712(A), which provides in part as follows: In any civil action the finder of fact may find the defendant not liable if the defendant proves…”
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Hernandez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 20× “” Although SDI and Hernandez argued these provisions below and here, the respondent judge did not address the application of these provisions to A.R.S. § 12-712. These arguments are therefore not before us.”
Picaso v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 154 P.3d 364 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The legislature has also enacted A.R.S. § 12-712, which states a defendant is not hable for damages a plaintiff incurs as a result of the negligence or gross negligence of the defendant while the plaintiff is committing or attempting to commit a crime, a situation more akin to…”
Coleman v. Tempe, City of (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 8× “21 In their motion for reconsideration, Defendants assert that the Walgreens evidence 22 should be presented to the jury because it is relevant and necessary to prove Defendants’ 23 state law presumption defenses under A.R.S. §§ 12-712 and 12-716. The Court will 24 address the…”
Coleman v. Tempe, City of (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 8× “21 In their motion for reconsideration, Defendants assert that the Walgreens evidence 22 should be presented to the jury because it is relevant and necessary to prove Defendants’ 23 state law presumption defenses under A.R.S. §§ 12-712 and 12-716. The Court will 24 address the…”
Lane v. Gavilan Peak (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “It therefore asserts that under A.R.S. § 12-712(C), it is not liable to Lane.”
Johnson v. Mesa, City of (D. Ariz. 2021).
“9 Section 12-712 states that: 10 A. In any civil action, the finder of fact may find the defendant 11 not liable if the defendant proves that the claimant .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-712(A) — 3 cases
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 141 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“¶ 14 SDI argues, however, that even though Frank Hernandez’s conduct gives rise to the traditional common law defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk, the “same conduct also supports the statutory defense of A.R.S. § 12-712, [so] defendants are not hable for…”
Muscat v. Creative, 418 P.3d 967 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“¶21 Nor are we persuaded that affirming the dismissal of Muscat’s negligence claims runs counter to the intended application of A.R.S. § 12-712(A), which provides in part as follows: In any civil action the finder of fact may find the defendant not liable if the defendant proves…”
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Hernandez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“” Although SDI and Hernandez argued these provisions below and here, the respondent judge did not address the application of these provisions to A.R.S. § 12-712. These arguments are therefore not before us.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-712(B) — 2 cases
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 141 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“¶ 14 SDI argues, however, that even though Frank Hernandez’s conduct gives rise to the traditional common law defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk, the “same conduct also supports the statutory defense of A.R.S. § 12-712, [so] defendants are not hable for…”
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Hernandez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
“” Although SDI and Hernandez argued these provisions below and here, the respondent judge did not address the application of these provisions to A.R.S. § 12-712. These arguments are therefore not before us.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-712(C) — 1 case
Lane v. Gavilan Peak (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“It therefore asserts that under A.R.S. § 12-712(C), it is not liable to Lane.”
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.