Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 23
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-801 (2026)

Liability of employer

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

To protect the safety of employees in all hazardous occupations in mining, smelting, manufacturing, railroad or street railway transportation, or any other industry, as provided in section 7, article 18 of the constitution, any employer, whether individual, association or corporation, is liable for the death or injury, caused by an accident due to a condition or conditions of such occupation, of an employee in the service of such employer, in a hazardous occupation, in all cases in which the death or injury of the employee is not caused by the negligence of the employee killed or injured.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1961–1999 · leading case: Mariscal v. Am. Smelting & Refining Co., 548 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mariscal v. Am. Smelting & Refining Co., 548 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 7× “Notwithstanding, appellants argue that under Arizona’s Employers’ Liability Law, A.R.S. § 23-801, et seq., non-dependent parents can maintain a wrongful death action against an employer if the child at the time of his death was engaged in a hazardous occupation.”
Diaz v. Magma Copper Co., 950 P.2d 1165 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-801. The Diazes later brought a separate action for wrongful death and medical negligence against David Necochea, a Magma dispensary worker who had administered first aid to Diaz while he was trapped.”
Bonner v. Minico, Inc., 766 P.2d 598 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 2× “The Employers' Liability Act, A.R.S. §§ 23-801 to -808, is separate from, but akin to, the Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Payne v. Pennzoil Corp., 672 P.2d 1322 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “XVIII, §§ 3, 1 7 and 8; Employer’s Liability Law, A.R.S. § 23-801, et seq.; *55 Workmen’s Compensation Law, A.”
Feffer v. Bowman, 365 P.2d 472 (Ariz. 1961). · cites it 5× “) The Act’s first three sections, virtually unchanged from their 1912 predecessors, provide as follows: “A.R.S. § 23-801. Liability of employer “To protect the safety of employees in all hazardous occupations in mining, smelting, manufacturing, railroad or street railway…”
Nunez v. Arizona Milling Co., 439 P.2d 834 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 6× “This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer in *388 an action brought' under the Employers’ Liability Law, A.R.S. § 23-801 et seq. The complaint alleges that while the plaintiff was employed by the defendant, the plaintiff developed “mercuric…”
Sw. Coop. Wholesale v. Superior Court, 477 P.2d 572 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “At the same time, Berry filed an action in the Superior Court against the two petitioners and another individual, alleging that he was engaged in a hazardous employment, and seeking recovery for his injury under the Employers’ Liability Law, A.R.S. § 23-801 et seq. After some…”
Lou Grubb Chevrolet v. INDUS. COM'N, 829 P.2d 1229 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “XVIII, § 7; A.R.S. § 23-801; Colvert v. Industrial Comm’n, 21 Ariz.”
Williams v. Magma Copper Co., 425 P.2d 138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “This is an appeal from a summary judgment against the plaintiff in a personal injury action brought under the provisions of Arizona’s Employers’ Liability Law, A.R.S. § 23-801 et seq. The plaintiff was a “chute-tapper” in defendant’s San Manuel mine when he was seriously hurt in…”
Myers v. Rollette, 439 P.2d 497 (Ariz. 1968). · cites it 2× “The plaintiff brought the suit under the provisions of the Employer’s Liability Law, A.R.S. § 23-801 et seq. (1956). The case was tried before a jury in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff of $130,000.”
Cunningham v. Goettl Air Conditioning, Inc., 980 P.2d 489 (Ariz. 1999). “) § 23-801 to § 23-1091, and therefore was precluded from suing Goettl for his injuries.”
Hall v. A.N.R. Freight Sys., Inc., 717 P.2d 434 (Ariz. 1986). “§§ 23-801 et seq., provides in pertinent part: “§ 23-806.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
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.