12-716. Injury during criminal acts; civil actions; presumptions; definitions
A. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a plaintiff is harmed while the plaintiff is attempting to commit, committing or fleeing after having committed or attempted to commit a felony criminal act or if a person intentionally or knowingly caused temporary but substantial disfigurement or temporary but substantial impairment of any body organ or part or a fracture of any body part of another person, the following presumptions apply to any civil liability action or claim:
1. A victim or peace officer is presumed to be acting reasonably if the victim or peace officer threatens to use or uses physical force or deadly physical force or a police tool product to either:
(a) Protect himself or another person against another person's use or attempted use of physical force or deadly physical force.
(b) Effect an arrest or prevent or assist in preventing a plaintiff's escape.
2. This state or a political subdivision of this state is presumed to have reasonably hired and trained its peace officers to use physical force or deadly physical force if a peace officer threatens to use or uses physical force or deadly physical force to either:
(a) Protect himself or another person against another person's use or attempted use of physical force or deadly physical force.
(b) Effect an arrest or prevent or assist in preventing a plaintiff's escape.
3. The police tool product that caused the physical harm and any accompanying warning or instruction are presumed not to be defective and the manufacturer of police tools is presumed not to be negligent if, before the sale by the manufacturer, the product either:
(a) Conforms with the generally recognized state of the art applicable to the safety and warnings of the product at the time the product was designed, manufactured, packaged and labeled.
(b) Complies with any applicable code, standard, regulation or specification that is established, adopted, promulgated or approved by the United States or this state or any agency of the United States or this state.
B. If a party files a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment pursuant to this section and the court grants the motion, the court shall award the moving party costs and attorney fees.
C. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Costs" means all costs that are reasonably incurred in connection with the motion, including filing fees, record preparation and document copying fees, time away from employment, expert witness fees, travel expenses and any other costs that the court deems appropriate.
2. "Plaintiff" includes the heir or estate of a deceased person who was attempting to commit, committing or fleeing after having committed or attempting to commit a felony or misdemeanor criminal act or was under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or a drug.
3. "Police tool product" means any weapon, safety equipment or product that is used by law enforcement.
Notes of Decisions
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018).
· cites it 4× “To do so, the defendant may use any applicable presumption set forth in § 12-716, which sets forth presumptions concerning crime victims and law enforcement officers.”
Harris v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 18× “1 Following discovery, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that 2 his decision to use deadly force was justified under A.R.S. §§ 12-716 and 13-410(c). The 3 Court agreed, finding no triable issues of fact existed as to whether Defendant was justified 4 in…”
Coleman v. Tempe, City of (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 7× “ARS § 12-716 26 Even though Defendants may properly assert the defense at trial, § 12-716 does not 27 provide a basis to present the Walgreens evidence to the jury.”
Coleman v. Tempe, City of (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 7× “ARS § 12-716 26 Even though Defendants may properly assert the defense at trial, § 12-716 does not 27 provide a basis to present the Walgreens evidence to the jury.”
Valdez v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 5× “§ 13-413 as well as a presumption of reasonableness under A.R.S. § 12-716. 23 Under Arizona law, “[n]o person .”
Harris v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2022).
· cites it 3× “None of Plaintiffs cited authorities concern 18 A.R.S. § 12-716, and indeed, one citation comes from a dissent and another from a specific 19 statute about attempting to elude law enforcement officers while driving a vehicle 20 (Decedent was not driving the getaway car).”
Waller v. Nogales, City of (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 3× “§ 13-1204(A)(8)(a) on a Sheriff's Deputy by 21 displaying two knives and brass knuckles when the deputy attempted to contact him, and 22 against a Border Patrol agent by driving towards her while avoiding stop sticks when 23 engaging in his U-turn in the median at the Border…”
Mosher v. Mesa, City of (D. Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 2× “§ 12-716 (A)(1) (presuming a peace officer acted reasonably in the 26 intentional use of physical force); § 12-716(A)(2) (presuming the employer of the peace 27 officer to have reasonably hired and trained its officer to use that physical force).”
Johnson v. Mesa, City of (D. Ariz. 2021).
“27 Finally, Section 12-716 provides that: 28 - 33 - Case 2:19-cv-02827-JAT-JZB Document 214 Filed 09/08/21 Page 34 of 37 1 A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-716(A)(1) — 1 case
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018).
“To do so, the defendant may use any applicable presumption set forth in § 12-716, which sets forth presumptions concerning crime victims and law enforcement officers.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-716(A)(1)(a) — 1 case
Valdez v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2019).
“§ 13-413 as well as a presumption of reasonableness under A.R.S. § 12-716. 23 Under Arizona law, “[n]o person .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-716(A)(2) — 3 cases
Susan Ryan v. napier/klein, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018).
“To do so, the defendant may use any applicable presumption set forth in § 12-716, which sets forth presumptions concerning crime victims and law enforcement officers.”
Valdez v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2019).
“§ 13-413 as well as a presumption of reasonableness under A.R.S. § 12-716. 23 Under Arizona law, “[n]o person .”
Mosher v. Mesa, City of (D. Ariz. 2024).
“§ 12-716 (A)(1) (presuming a peace officer acted reasonably in the 26 intentional use of physical force); § 12-716(A)(2) (presuming the employer of the peace 27 officer to have reasonably hired and trained its officer to use that physical force).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-716(B) — 1 case
Harris v. Phoenix, City of (D. Ariz. 2024).
“1 Following discovery, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that 2 his decision to use deadly force was justified under A.R.S. §§ 12-716 and 13-410(c). The 3 Court agreed, finding no triable issues of fact existed as to whether Defendant was justified 4 in…”
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.