A. Unless a public employee acting within the scope of the public employee's employment intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent, neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for:
1. The failure to make an arrest or the failure to retain an arrested person in custody.
2. An injury caused by an escaping or escaped prisoner or a youth committed to the department of juvenile corrections.
3. An injury resulting from the probation, community supervision or discharge of a prisoner or a youth committed to the department of juvenile corrections, from the terms and conditions of the prisoner's or youth's probation or community supervision or from the revocation of the prisoner's or youth's probation, community supervision or conditional release under the jurisdiction of the superior court.
4. An injury caused by a prisoner to any other prisoner or an injury caused by a youth committed to the department of juvenile corrections to any other committed youth.
5. The issuance of or failure to revoke or suspend any permit, license, certificate, approval, order or similar authorization for which absolute immunity is not provided pursuant to section 12-820.01.
6. The failure to discover violations of any provision of law when inspections are done of property other than property owned by the public entity in question.
7. An injury to the driver of a motor vehicle that is attributable to the violation by the driver of section 28-693, 28-1381 or 28-1382.
8. The failure to prevent the sale or transfer of a handgun to a person whose receipt or possession of the handgun is unlawful under any federal law or any law of this state.
9. Preventing the sale or transfer of a handgun to a person who may lawfully receive or possess a handgun.
10. The failure to detain a juvenile taken into temporary custody or arrested for a criminal offense or delinquent or incorrigible act in the appropriate detention facility, jail or lockup described in section 8-305.
11. An injury caused by a peace officer if the injury was caused by any act or omission while rendering emergency care at the scene of an emergency occurrence.
B. The qualified immunity provided in this section applies to a public entity or public employee if the injury or damage was caused by a contractor's employee or a contractor of a public entity acting within the scope of the contract. The qualified immunity provided in this section does not apply to the contractor or the contractor's employee.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
66
cases (
14 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case:
DeVries v. State, 211 P.3d 1185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
DeVries v. State, 211 P.3d 1185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 66× “An injury to the driver of a motor vehicle that is attributable to the violation • by the driver of § 28-693, 28-1381 or 28-1382.”
Walls v. Arizona Dep't of Pub. Saf., 826 P.2d 1217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 28× “2 DPS and Officer Singleton filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there were no facts indicating that the conduct of either Singleton or DPS constituted negligence; that, absent willful intent or gross negligence, A.R.S. § 12-820.02 extends a qualified immunity to…”
Greenwood v. State, 175 P.3d 687 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 33× “See A.R.S. § 12-820.02. 9 As relevant in this case, A.”
Evenstad v. State, 875 P.2d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 17× “AR.S. § 12-820.02 (1992). Appellants maintain that this statute is inapplicable because their theory of liability is not premised on the fault of a public employee in issuing a license, which would fall under AR.”
Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 378 P.3d 720 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 16× “The Families argued that the City breached a duty of care owed the Families to “conduct reasonable investigations in criminal matters to avoid delayed apprehension and continued victimization,” which amounted to gross negligence in violation of A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(1). The City…”
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove, 971 P.2d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 16× “”) section 12-820.02, Congrove could not be liable for Christina’s injuries unless he intended to cause the injuries or was grossly negligent.”
Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. State, 24 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. 2001).
· cites it 7× “…approval, order or similar authorization for which absolute immunity is not provided pursuant to § 12-820.01. A.R.S. § 12-820.02 (2000).”
Bird v. State Through Corbin, 821 P.2d 287 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 13× “01, but at most had only the qualified immunity afforded by A.R.S. § 12-820.02; and (3) plaintiffs/appellants have standing to bring their cause of action.”
Carstens v. City of Phoenix, 75 P.3d 1081 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “¶ 24 In Moore, a motor home dealer sued the State, alleging that it negligently failed to detect stolen vehicles during an inspection prior to issuing certificates of title for the vehicles. 129 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(1) — 2 cases
Walls v. Arizona Dep't of Pub. Saf., 826 P.2d 1217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
“2 DPS and Officer Singleton filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there were no facts indicating that the conduct of either Singleton or DPS constituted negligence; that, absent willful intent or gross negligence, A.R.S. § 12-820.02 extends a qualified immunity to…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(5) — 3 cases
Evenstad v. State, 875 P.2d 811 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“AR.S. § 12-820.02 (1992). Appellants maintain that this statute is inapplicable because their theory of liability is not premised on the fault of a public employee in issuing a license, which would fall under AR.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A) — 8 cases
DeVries v. State, 211 P.3d 1185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“An injury to the driver of a motor vehicle that is attributable to the violation • by the driver of § 28-693, 28-1381 or 28-1382.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A)(1) — 19 cases
Greenwood v. State, 175 P.3d 687 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
“See A.R.S. § 12-820.02. 9 As relevant in this case, A.”
Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 378 P.3d 720 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“The Families argued that the City breached a duty of care owed the Families to “conduct reasonable investigations in criminal matters to avoid delayed apprehension and continued victimization,” which amounted to gross negligence in violation of A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(1). The City…”
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove, 971 P.2d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“”) section 12-820.02, Congrove could not be liable for Christina’s injuries unless he intended to cause the injuries or was grossly negligent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A)(1)(2000) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A)(11) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A)(2) — 4 cases
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove, 971 P.2d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“”) section 12-820.02, Congrove could not be liable for Christina’s injuries unless he intended to cause the injuries or was grossly negligent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A)(4) — 3 cases
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove, 971 P.2d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“”) section 12-820.02, Congrove could not be liable for Christina’s injuries unless he intended to cause the injuries or was grossly negligent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A)(5) — 6 cases
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove, 971 P.2d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“”) section 12-820.02, Congrove could not be liable for Christina’s injuries unless he intended to cause the injuries or was grossly negligent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A)(6) — 5 cases
DeVries v. State, 211 P.3d 1185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“An injury to the driver of a motor vehicle that is attributable to the violation • by the driver of § 28-693, 28-1381 or 28-1382.”
Carstens v. City of Phoenix, 75 P.3d 1081 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“¶ 24 In Moore, a motor home dealer sued the State, alleging that it negligently failed to detect stolen vehicles during an inspection prior to issuing certificates of title for the vehicles. 129 Ariz.”
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove, 971 P.2d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“”) section 12-820.02, Congrove could not be liable for Christina’s injuries unless he intended to cause the injuries or was grossly negligent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A)(7) — 4 cases
DeVries v. State, 211 P.3d 1185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“An injury to the driver of a motor vehicle that is attributable to the violation • by the driver of § 28-693, 28-1381 or 28-1382.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A)(8) — 1 case
Luchanski v. Officer J.L. Congrove, 971 P.2d 636 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“”) section 12-820.02, Congrove could not be liable for Christina’s injuries unless he intended to cause the injuries or was grossly negligent.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.02(A)(l) — 1 case
Hogue v. City of Phoenix, 378 P.3d 720 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“The Families argued that the City breached a duty of care owed the Families to “conduct reasonable investigations in criminal matters to avoid delayed apprehension and continued victimization,” which amounted to gross negligence in violation of A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(1). The City…”
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.