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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.03 (2026)

Affirmative defense; resolution by trial

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

A. A public entity or a public employee is not liable for an injury arising out of a plan or design for construction or maintenance of or improvement to transportation facilities, including highways, roads, streets, bridges or rights-of-way, if the plan or design is prepared in conformance with generally accepted engineering or design standards in effect at the time of the preparation of the plan or design and the public entity or public employee gives to the public a reasonably adequate warning of any unreasonably dangerous condition.

B. If a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the public entity or public employee has met the requirements of subsection A of this section, the issue shall be resolved by a trial before and separate and apart from a trial on damages.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · leading case: Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona, 347 P.3d 1141 (Ariz. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Diana Glazer v. State of Arizona, 347 P.3d 1141 (Ariz. 2015). · cites it 116× “” On this record, the lack of a median barrier was an inherent feature of the original construction design that persisted to the time of the accident, making our conclusion entirely appropriate.”
Glazer v. State, 321 P.3d 470 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 44× “The State sought summary judgment pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-820.03, an affirmative defense applicable to a claim for “an injury arising out of a plan or design for construction” of a highway if certain conditions are met.”
City of Tucson v. Fahringer, 795 P.2d 819 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 19× “A.R.S. § 12-820.03. Where applicable, the statute at issue establishes an affirmative defense in favor of government entities that acts as an absolute bar to the action.”
Edwards v. Bd. of Supervisors, 229 P.3d 233 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 18× “In particular, the Edwards cite a lack of evidence showing the construction of the road and culvert was “state of the art.”
DeVries v. State, 211 P.3d 1185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “In Fahringer , the City of Tucson argued that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by A.R.S. § 12-820.03(2), which provided that “[neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury .”
Galati v. Lake Havasu City, 920 P.2d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 12-820.03; Goss, 180 Ariz. at 233 , 883 P.”
Morales v. Hon coffey/state, 535 P.3d 52 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 13× “]” A.R.S. § 12-820.03(A) (“affirmative defense provision”).”
Link v. Pima Cnty., 972 P.2d 669 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 12-820.03; Galati . On remand, the trial court will be able to consider, after additional briefing by the parties and such other proceedings as are appropriate, whether the County was entitled to legislative or administrative absolute immunity on Link’s claim that…”
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 141 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “There, the City of Tucson argued the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by A.R.S. § 12-820.03(2), which had provided that a public entity was not liable to those injured while riding in a vehicle driven by someone under the influence of alcohol, whether the injured claimants were…”
City of Tucson v. Fahringer, 781 P.2d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 24× “The sole issue in this special action is the constitutionality of an affirmative defense to claims against public entities created by the legislature in A.R.S. § 12-820.03(2), which precludes liability for certain injuries attributable to the fault of a person driving while…”
Fleming v. State Dep't of Pub. Saf., 352 P.3d 446 (Ariz. 2015). “Narrowly construing immunity provisions, including § 12-820.”
Goss v. City of Globe, 883 P.2d 466 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “Section 12-820.03 provides a public entity with an affirmative defense regarding the “plan or design for construction or maintenance of or improvement to highways, roads, streets, bridges, or rights-of-way____” That there is a defense to liability is, of course, distinguishable…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.03(1) — 1 case
Galati v. Lake Havasu City, 920 P.2d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “A.R.S. § 12-820.03; Goss, 180 Ariz. at 233 , 883 P.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.03(2) — 5 cases
City of Tucson v. Fahringer, 795 P.2d 819 (Ariz. 1990). “A.R.S. § 12-820.03. Where applicable, the statute at issue establishes an affirmative defense in favor of government entities that acts as an absolute bar to the action.”
DeVries v. State, 211 P.3d 1185 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “In Fahringer , the City of Tucson argued that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by A.R.S. § 12-820.03(2), which provided that “[neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury .”
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Miller, 141 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006). “There, the City of Tucson argued the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by A.R.S. § 12-820.03(2), which had provided that a public entity was not liable to those injured while riding in a vehicle driven by someone under the influence of alcohol, whether the injured claimants were…”
City of Tucson v. Fahringer, 781 P.2d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “The sole issue in this special action is the constitutionality of an affirmative defense to claims against public entities created by the legislature in A.R.S. § 12-820.03(2), which precludes liability for certain injuries attributable to the fault of a person driving while…”
Sonoran Desert Investigations, Inc. v. Hernandez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.03(A) — 6 cases
Morales v. Hon coffey/state, 535 P.3d 52 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “]” A.R.S. § 12-820.03(A) (“affirmative defense provision”).”
Ochoa v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Amanda Campion & James Campion v. City of Tucson, 536 P.3d 1232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Tourtillot v. Yuma Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
Cenite v. Carter Burgess (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.03(B) — 5 cases
Morales v. Hon coffey/state, 535 P.3d 52 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “]” A.R.S. § 12-820.03(A) (“affirmative defense provision”).”
Ochoa v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Amanda Campion & James Campion v. City of Tucson, 536 P.3d 1232 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
Tourtillot v. Yuma Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
Luyet v. Mariposa Landscape (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
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.