Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

A.R.S. § 12-2505

Comparative negligence; definition

Applied in 21 court decisions — leading case McIntyre v. Balentine (1992)

Most recently applied in Amanda Watts v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (January 2016)

How often courts cite this section

1984199020002010201630
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

A. The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk is in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury. If the jury applies either defense, the claimant's action is not barred, but the full damages shall be reduced in proportion to the relative degree of the claimant's fault which is a proximate cause of the injury or death, if any. There is no right to comparative negligence in favor of any claimant who has intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death.

B. In this section, "claimant's fault" includes the fault imputed or attributed to a claimant by operation of law, if any.

Official source: Arizona State Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Arizona statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.