Arizona Personal-Injury Practice

Arizona Personal-Injury Practice

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Arizona tort practice is deadline-sensitive and has structural features that diverge sharply from most states — pure comparative negligence, the constitutional ban on damage caps, the nonparty-at-fault apportionment regime, and the strict public- entity notice of claim. Statute numbers, day counts, and SOLs change — verify every SOL, threshold, and predicate-notice clock against the current A.R.S. before relying, and consult a licensed Arizona attorney about your specific case.

Use this subject-matter bundle for Arizona personal-injury and tort actions — auto accidents, premises (slip-and-fall), product and general negligence, medical malpractice, wrongful death, dog bites, and claims against governmental entities.

At a glance — the things that move every AZ case

1. 2-year personal-injury SOL at A.R.S. § 12-542. Claims against a public entity / public employee run on a much shorter 1-year SOL (A.R.S. § 12-821) and require a 180-day notice of claim first (A.R.S. § 12-821.01). Calendar at intake.
2. PURE comparative negligence under A.R.S. § 12-2505 — a plaintiff's recovery is reduced in proportion to fault but is NEVER barred, even if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant. Arizona is NOT a modified / 50%-bar state.
3. Several liability only under A.R.S. § 12-2506 — Arizona abolished joint liability. Each defendant pays only its own allocated percentage of fault. Identify every at-fault actor.
4. Nonparty at fault (A.R.S. § 12-2506(B)) — the defense may shift fault to an absent person by serving a notice of nonparty at fault within the deadline in Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b). This is the central defensive lever in Arizona tort cases.
5. NO DAMAGE CAPS — constitutional. The Arizona Constitution prohibits the legislature from limiting injury/death damages (art. 2 § 31 and art. 18 § 6). Arizona has no med-mal cap and no non-economic-damages cap of any kind.
6. Med-mal preliminary expert affidavit (A.R.S. § 12-2603) plus expert qualification (A.R.S. § 12-2604) — the early gates in health-care negligence cases (the § 12-2603 certification is filed with the claim, not pre-suit; the affidavit is served with the Rule 26.1 initial disclosures).
7. Dog-bite strict liability (A.R.S. § 11-1025) — owner liable regardless of the dog's prior viciousness or the owner's knowledge.
8. UM/UIM coverage is a frequent secondary recovery source in auto cases — confirm the policy and any statutory selection.

Statute-of-limitations catalog

Notes (point to corpus — az-law-references az-statutes-debt/ — for the operative day counts and any tolling / discovery-rule text; this skill does not hardcode them):

• The public-entity 1-year SOL (A.R.S. § 12-821) is far shorter than the general 2-year clock and runs alongside the 180-day notice of claim (A.R.S. § 12-821.01). Treat any government defendant as a SOL emergency.
• Arizona recognizes a discovery rule for accrual in some claims (e.g., latent medical-malpractice injury) — confirm accrual and any minority / unsound-mind tolling in corpus before relying on a filing date.
• The statutory dog-bite strict-liability action and a common- law negligence dog-bite action carry different limitation periods — confirm which clock applies in corpus.

Pure comparative negligence — A.R.S. § 12-2505

Arizona is a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction. This is a distinctive, plaintiff-favorable feature — flag it clearly:

• A.R.S. § 12-2505(A) — "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." A plaintiff who is 80% at fault still recovers 20% of their damages. There is no 50% bar and no greater-than-defendant bar — contrast the modified / 51%-bar systems used in most states.
• The only carve-out is for a claimant who intentionally, wilfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death — that claimant has no right to comparative apportionment (A.R.S. § 12-2505(A)).
• Fault is assessed by the trier of fact and applied across all contributing actors, including nonparties (see § 12-2506 below).

Several liability and nonparty at fault — A.R.S. § 12-2506

Arizona abolished joint-and-several liability for most tort actions. The apportionment regime is the structural heart of Arizona tort defense:

• A.R.S. § 12-2506(A) — "Each defendant is liable only for the amount of damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant's percentage of fault." The court enters separate, several judgments reflecting each defendant's proportionate share. There is no contribution among tortfeasors in the ordinary case because no one overpays its share.
• A.R.S. § 12-2506(B) — nonparty at fault. The fault of a nonparty may be considered in the allocation if the plaintiff settled with that nonparty or the defending party gives notice before trial identifying the nonparty and the basis for attributing fault. The mechanics — content and the deadline — are governed by Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (the notice of nonparty at fault). Missing the rule's deadline forfeits the ability to point the jury at the absent actor.
• A.R.S. § 12-2506(D) — exceptions (joint liability survives). Defendants remain jointly liable where they (1) acted in concert, (2) one acted as the agent or servant of the other, or (3) liability arises under the federal Employers' Liability Act. These are narrow — confirm the current list in corpus.

Strategic upshot: because each defendant pays only its allocated share and the defense can shift fault onto empty chairs, finding and joining every solvent at-fault actor — and policing the nonparty-at-fault notice under Rule 26(b) — drives recovery in Arizona multi-defendant cases.

NO damage caps — the constitutional prohibition

Arizona has no statutory cap on damages of any kind — no non-economic cap, no medical-malpractice cap, no punitive cap by statute. This is a constitutional rule, not merely a legislative choice, and it is the single most distinctive feature of Arizona tort law:

• Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 31 — "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."
• Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 6 — "The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation."

Together these provisions forbid the Arizona legislature from capping injury or wrongful-death damages. Any attempt to impose a damages cap by statute is unconstitutional. (Both provisions carry a narrow carve-out for persons injured while attempting or engaged in felony conduct.) Do not import another jurisdiction's cap framework — in Arizona, plead uncapped economic and non-economic damages.

Medical malpractice — A.R.S. § 12-561 et seq.

Health-care liability is governed by A.R.S. Title 12, Chapter 5.1 ("Actions Relating to Health Care," § 12-561 et seq.). Note that there is no damages cap (above) — the gating issues are the expert affidavit and expert qualification requirements:

Preliminary expert opinion affidavit — A.R.S. § 12-2603

• § 12-2603(A) — the claimant must certify in a written statement filed and served with the claim whether or not expert opinion testimony is necessary to prove the standard of care or liability.
• § 12-2603(B) — if the claimant certifies that expert testimony is necessary, the claimant must serve a preliminary expert opinion affidavit with the initial disclosures required by Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26.1. The affidavit must address the expert's qualifications, the standard of care, the manner of breach, and how the breach caused the injury (confirm the statutory element list in corpus).
• A defective or missing affidavit exposes the claim to dismissal — treat it as an early case-dispositive gate.

Expert qualifications — A.R.S. § 12-2604

The standard-of-care expert must satisfy Arizona's matching- specialty rule — broadly, the expert must specialize in the same specialty as the defendant (or, if the defendant is board-certified, be board-certified in that specialty) and, during the year immediately before the alleged malpractice, have devoted a majority of professional time to active clinical practice or to instruction of students in that specialty. Confirm the exact qualification text in corpus before relying.

Public entities — the notice of claim and 1-year SOL

Claims against the State, counties, cities, school districts, and public employees are governed by A.R.S. Title 12, Article 2 — and the prerequisites are strict and commonly fatal:

• A.R.S. § 12-821.01 — 180-day notice of claim. A person with a claim against a public entity, public school, or public employee must file a notice of claim within 180 days after the cause of action accrues. The notice must contain facts sufficient to permit the entity to understand the basis of liability and a specific amount for which the claim can be settled together with facts supporting that amount. A claim not filed within 180 days is barred — Arizona courts enforce this strictly, and a defective sum-certain demand can sink the claim.
• A.R.S. § 12-821 — 1-year SOL. Even after a timely notice of claim, the lawsuit itself must be filed within one year after the cause of action accrues — half the general 2-year clock.
• Calendar both clocks separately at intake. A government defendant turns a routine PI matter into a deadline emergency: the 180-day notice runs first, the 1-year suit clock runs alongside it.

Dog-bite liability — A.R.S. §§ 11-1025 / 11-1020

• A.R.S. § 11-1025(A) — strict liability. The owner of a dog that bites a person in a public place or while the person is lawfully in or on a private place (including the owner's property) is liable for damages "regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of its viciousness." No "one free bite" rule applies to the statutory action.
• A.R.S. § 11-1020 — companion provision imposing liability on a person who allows a dog to be at large for any resulting injury to person or property (broader than a bite); confirm the interaction with § 11-1025 in corpus.
• Provocation defense — § 11-1025 cross-references the definition of "provocation" (see A.R.S. § 11-1027); provocation is the principal statutory defense.
• Distinguish the statutory strict-liability action from a common-law negligence dog-bite claim — they carry different limitation periods (see SOL catalog).

Uninsured / underinsured motorist (UM/UIM)

In auto cases, UM/UIM coverage under the injured person's own (or a resident relative's) policy is a frequent secondary recovery source where the at-fault driver is uninsured or under-insured:

• Confirm the policy limits, any required written rejection / selection of UM/UIM coverage, and the stacking rules.
• UM/UIM claims are often contractual and may carry policy / contractual notice and suit deadlines distinct from the tort SOL — read the policy and confirm the operative limitation in corpus.

High-yield Arizona PI checks

1. What's the SOL? General PI 2 years (A.R.S. § 12-542). Public-entity defendant → 1 year (§ 12-821) + 180-day notice of claim (§ 12-821.01). Dog-bite statutory vs. common-law clock?
2. Comparative fault? Arizona is PURE — plaintiff recovers even if more than 50% at fault (A.R.S. § 12-2505), reduced by fault share. Only intentional/wilful/wanton conduct forfeits apportionment.
3. Multiple actors? Several liability only (A.R.S. § 12-2506(A)); each defendant pays its own share. Watch for a defense notice of nonparty at fault under § 12-2506(B) / Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b) — and join every solvent at-fault actor.
4. Damages? No caps — plead uncapped non-economic and economic damages (Ariz. Const. art. 2 § 31 + art. 18 § 6). Do not import another jurisdiction's cap.
5. Medical malpractice? Certify under § 12-2603(A); serve the preliminary expert opinion affidavit with Rule 26.1 initial disclosures (§ 12-2603(B)); confirm the expert satisfies the matching-specialty rule (§ 12-2604).
6. Public defendant? 180-day notice of claim with a sum- certain settlement demand and supporting facts (§ 12-821.01); 1- year suit clock (§ 12-821). Both strict.
7. Dog bite? Statutory strict liability (§ 11-1025) — owner liable regardless of prior viciousness; assess the provocation defense (§ 11-1027).
8. Auto case? UM/UIM coverage available? Policy limits, selection / rejection, stacking, contractual notice deadlines?

Drafting checklist

• Confirm the 2-year SOL (or the 1-year public-entity clock) is not running out within 30 days; calendar the 180-day notice of claim separately for any government defendant.
• Plead pure comparative negligence awareness — recovery is reduced, never barred, by plaintiff's fault share (A.R.S. § 12-2505).
• Identify and join every at-fault actor; track the defense notice of nonparty at fault (A.R.S. § 12-2506(B) / Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)) and move to add necessary defendants.
• In the damages prayer, plead uncapped economic and non- economic damages — Arizona's Constitution bars statutory caps (art. 2 § 31 + art. 18 § 6). Do not hardcode any cap.
• For medical malpractice, file the § 12-2603(A) certification with the complaint and serve the preliminary expert opinion affidavit with the Rule 26.1 initial disclosures; confirm the expert meets § 12-2604.
• For a public defendant, serve the § 12-821.01 notice of claim within 180 days with a specific settlement amount and supporting facts, then file suit within the 1-year § 12-821 window.
• For a dog bite, plead § 11-1025 strict liability and anticipate the provocation defense (§ 11-1027).
• In an auto case, identify any UM/UIM coverage and its separate contractual deadlines.

Composition

• For statewide format and caption: az-statewide-format
• For first responsive pleading and affirmative defenses: az-first-30-days
• For drafting motions / declarations / orders: az-draft-motion, az-draft-declaration, az-draft-order
• For SOL / notice-of-claim clocks: az-deadlines
• For discovery (incl. Rule 26(b) nonparty-at-fault notice and Rule 26.1 initial disclosures): az-discovery
• For QC: az-quality-check, az-fact-check

References

• az-law-references — A.R.S., Ariz. R. Civ. P., Ariz. R. Evid., Arizona Constitution, and federal symlinks (az-statutes-debt/ holds the verbatim statutory text — point there for SOL day counts and operative section text)
• A.R.S. § 12-542 — 2-year personal-injury / wrongful-death SOL
• A.R.S. § 12-541(5) — 1-year statutory-liability limitation (the § 11-1025 dog-bite strict-liability action)
• A.R.S. § 12-2505 — pure comparative negligence (recovery reduced, never barred)
• A.R.S. § 12-2506 — several liability; nonparty at fault (B); acting-in-concert / agency exceptions (D)
• A.R.S. § 12-561 et seq. — actions relating to health care
• A.R.S. § 12-2603 — preliminary expert opinion affidavit (med-mal)
• A.R.S. § 12-2604 — expert qualifications (med-mal)
• A.R.S. § 12-821 — 1-year SOL against a public entity / employee
• A.R.S. § 12-821.01 — 180-day notice of claim against a public entity / public school / public employee
• A.R.S. § 11-1025 — dog-bite strict liability
• A.R.S. § 11-1020 — dog-at-large liability (injury to person or property)
• A.R.S. § 11-1027 — definition of "provocation" (dog-bite defense)
• Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 31 — no law limiting damages for death or injury
• Ariz. Const. art. 18, § 6 — right of action never abrogated; amount recovered not subject to any statutory limitation
• Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b) — notice of nonparty at fault
• Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26.1 — initial disclosures (trigger for the § 12- 2603(B) preliminary expert affidavit)