Arizona’s Comparative Negligence Rule

Comparative negligence is a legal theory that apportions fault to multiple parties. The fault that is assigned to each party affects the amount of damages they are required to pay. Arizona follows a pure comparative negligence system, which is a comprehensive form of the comparative negligence rule. This means that a party can be found completely at fault for an incident, and still recover a portion of damages from another party or parties.

In the state of Arizona, comparative negligence is used to determine fault and damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases, which may involve two entities or more. Comparative negligence is applied when the accused party is found to have an element of fault in the case, while the plaintiff is also accused of having a portion of fault in the case as well. If a plaintiff is found to have some level of fault, then their portion of damages would be reduced to reflect the portion of fault assigned to them.

For example, if a plaintiff files a claim for damages in an automobile accident in Arizona, and the defendant is determined to have 70% fault and the plaintiff 30% fault, then the defendant would be liable to pay 70% of the damages awarded to the plaintiff. It is important to note, however, that in order for the comparative negligence rule to be applied, a court must find that the plaintiff was partially at fault for the incident.

In Arizona, a court typically decides whether to apply the comparative negligence rule based on a variety of factors, including the severity of the incident, the degree of injury to the plaintiff, the degree of fault of the defendant, and the degree of fault of the plaintiff. The court will also consider whether or not the plaintiff or defendant acted in a negligent manner. If the court determines that the defendant acted excessively negligent, and the plaintiff acted within reason, then the comparative negligence rule may be applied.

Once liability is determined, the court will then award damages to the plaintiff, with a portion of the damages being reduced to reflect the degree of fault assigned to the plaintiff in the incident. The amount of the reduction depends on the percentage of fault assigned to the plaintiff. For example, if the court determines the plaintiff has 30% fault, then the damages awarded to the plaintiff would be reduced by 30%.

The comparative negligence rule in Arizona is designed to provide compensation to the plaintiff, while also holding all parties accountable for their actions. It is important to note that the comparative negligence only affects damages, meaning that all parties involved can still be found liable for the incident, and may be required to pay additional damages as a result.

If you are involved in an accident or other incident in Arizona and you believe the other party is at fault, it is important to consult an experienced personal injury attorney to discuss the specifics of your case and determine the best course of action to take. An experienced personal injury attorney can help you understand the comparative negligence rule in Arizona, and can help you pursue the full compensation you could potentially be entitled to receive.