Arizona Personal Injury Law Reference
This page collects the Arizona statutes, constitutional provisions, and decisions that most often decide the timing and value of a personal injury case, in plain language, with citations you can check. Gregory Stuck is admitted to practice in Arizona.
Deadlines
Two Years, and a 180-Day Trap for Government Cases
A.R.S. § 12-542; §§ 12-821, 12-821.01
Arizona allows two years from accrual to sue for injuries to the person; wrongful death accrues at the death. But when a city, county, school district, or the state is involved, the ordinary deadline is an illusion: a formal notice of claim stating a specific settlement amount must be served within 180 days, and suit must be filed within one year. Crashes involving government vehicles or dangerous public roads are on a six-month clock most people never see coming.
Fault Rules
Pure Comparative Fault, Guaranteed to the Jury by the Constitution
A.R.S. § 12-2505; Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 5
Arizona is a pure comparative fault state: the statute says the claimant’s action “is not barred,” and damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant’s fault. A person 80 percent at fault still recovers 20 percent. Arizona adds a constitutional layer most states lack: article 18, section 5 makes contributory negligence “in all cases” a question of fact for the jury, so fault can never be decided against an injured person as a matter of law. The one statutory exception: a claimant who intentionally, wilfully, or wantonly caused their own injury gets no comparative reduction at all.
Several Liability Only: Every Defendant Pays Its Own Share
A.R.S. § 12-2506
Arizona abolished joint and several liability in 1987. Each defendant is liable only for its own percentage of fault, with a separate judgment entered for that amount; the narrow exceptions are concert of action and agency. Defendants may name nonparties at fault, so juries can assign percentages to empty chairs like a fleeing driver or an out-of-reach employer. The practical consequence: in a serious Arizona case, identifying and keeping every responsible party in the case is not procedural housekeeping, it is the recovery.
Damages
Damages Caps Are Constitutionally Prohibited
Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 31; art. 18, § 6
Read directly from the constitutional text. Article 2, section 31 provides: “No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person.” Article 18, section 6 separately forbids abrogating the right of action to recover damages for injuries. Arizona’s founders did not leave caps to litigation; they banned them in 1912 at statehood. There are no caps on economic or noneconomic damages in any Arizona injury or death case, and no legislature can enact one without amending the constitution.
Wrongful Death
A.R.S. §§ 12-611 to 12-613
Arizona’s wrongful death action is brought for the statutory beneficiaries, the surviving spouse, children, or parents, and by the personal representative on behalf of the estate where none survive. The trier of fact awards damages that are fair and just with reference to the injury the death caused the surviving parties. Combined with the constitutional prohibition on caps, the value of an Arizona death case is decided by the jury, not by a statute.
The Rule Insurers Like Here
The Seat Belt Defense: Law v. Superior Court
157 Ariz. 147, 755 P.2d 1135 (1988)
Read in full for this page, including the supplemental opinion. Arizona is one of the minority of states where a plaintiff’s failure to wear a seat belt can reduce the recovery. The Supreme Court of Arizona held that under comparative fault, unreasonable nonuse of an available seat belt is “fault” the jury may weigh, but only on damages, never on liability, and only after the defendant proves several factual predicates: an available and operational belt, nonuse that was unreasonable under the circumstances, a causal link between nonuse and the injuries, and evidence showing the degree of enhancement with reasonable probability. The burden sits entirely on the defense, expert testimony is usually required, and the constitution keeps the ultimate question with the jury. Knowing exactly what the defense must prove is how the defense gets beaten.
On the Research Roadmap
Queued for full reads and future entries: Kenyon v. Hammer on the constitutional limits of tort legislation; the underinsured motorist statute (A.R.S. § 20-259.01); dram shop liability under A.R.S. § 4-311 and Torres v. JAI Dining Services; and the wrongful death damages case law.
Last reviewed: August 21, 2026
This page is legal information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutes and case law change; the last-reviewed date above reflects the most recent verification. If you were injured in Arizona, call (407) 630-8692 for a free consultation with an attorney admitted in Arizona.