Arizona generally uses pure comparative negligence in car accident injury cases. If the person seeking compensation is partly at fault, their share of fault can reduce the damages they recover. Under the general rule, partial fault does not automatically bar recovery, even when that person is more than 50% at fault.
How Arizona’s comparative negligence rule works
Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant’s relative fault when the defense applies. The statute contains an exception for a claimant who intentionally, willfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury. Ordinary crash disputes often turn on which actions contributed to the collision and what the evidence can establish.
Say a factfinder determines damages are $80,000 and assigns you 25% of the fault. The reduction is $20,000, leaving $60,000 in this simplified example. The calculation illustrates how fault affects damages. It does not establish what an insurer will pay or what you will receive after a real crash.
Why both drivers’ actions can matter
Imagine one driver turns left across oncoming traffic and the other is alleged to be speeding. The question is how the turn, speed, visibility, and time to react each contributed to the collision. Camera footage and witness accounts might support the allegation of speeding, show that it was exaggerated, or leave the question unresolved.
Arizona’s allocation of fault statute also addresses how fault may be assessed among people who contributed to an injury, including qualifying nonparties. Cases with several vehicles or a potential roadway hazard can require a closer look at who was involved and how each person’s conduct affected the outcome.
What to do if an insurer assigns you a percentage
Ask the adjuster which action it attributes to you, how that action supposedly contributed to the crash, and which records support the percentage. Request the explanation in writing. Review the facts carefully before responding. It is fine to say you did not see something or cannot estimate a speed accurately.
An adjuster’s initial allocation is the insurer’s position. A police report can help, but it may not capture the timing of the traffic light, the view from each approach, or events outside the officer’s direct observation. When a case goes to trial, disputed facts may be resolved by a judge or jury.
Build a record that addresses the disputed facts
Preserve the original dashcam file and take note of its timestamp. Save scene photos that show signals, lane markings, sight lines, and the position of the vehicles. Write down independent witnesses’ contact details and what each person was in a position to see. Keep your account separate from later assumptions about what someone else did.
Medical records and wage information support a different part of the claim: the extent of the loss. Keep those records even while the parties are arguing about fault. A percentage reduction is only one part of the calculation, so it helps to document both how the crash happened and what it cost you.
When to ask for a review
A fault dispute is worth reviewing when a meaningful share of the blame rests on a fact you believe is incorrect, such as which lane you were in or whether you had a green light. Bring the insurer’s explanation, report, photos, and witness names. Mark what you know firsthand and what you are still trying to confirm.
If the collision happened in the Phoenix area, DIG’s Phoenix car accident injury team can help you understand how a disputed allocation may affect your case. This article describes Arizona’s general rule. The evidence and circumstances of a particular crash matter.
