What Pure Comparative Negligence Means

Pure comparative negligence is a system for splitting fault among multiple parties in an accident. Each party is assigned a percentage of fault, and damages are reduced by that percentage.

Pure comparative negligence is distinct from modified comparative negligence (used in 33 states), where a party is barred from recovering if their fault exceeds 50 or 51 percent. Under pure comparative negligence, no such bar exists. A party who was 99% at fault can still recover 1% of their damages.

Arizona has used pure comparative negligence since 1984, when the legislature enacted ARS §12-2505 in response to a wave of state cases moving away from contributory negligence (which barred recovery for any plaintiff fault).

How ARS §12-2505 Actually Reads

The statute provides that the defense of contributory negligence shall not be a complete defense to any action for damages for personal injuries. Instead, fault must be apportioned among all parties contributing to the harm. The plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault.

In jury trials, the jury determines fault percentages for each party based on the evidence presented. In settlement negotiations, the parties’ attorneys debate percentages based on what a jury would likely find.

A Real-World Example

Consider a typical Arizona car accident case. You are driving down the road at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone. Another driver runs a red light and hits you. Your damages total $100,000.

Under Arizona pure comparative negligence:

• Jury finds the other driver 80% at fault for running the red light
• Jury finds you 20% at fault for speeding
• Your $100,000 award is reduced by 20% to $80,000

In a modified comparative negligence state, the analysis would be the same since you were under the 50% threshold. But if you had been 60% at fault under modified rules, you would recover nothing. Under Arizona pure comparative, you would recover 40% of your damages.

How Insurers Use Comparative Negligence Against You

Insurance adjusters use Arizona’s pure comparative negligence rule as a negotiation tool. Even when liability is clear, they will assert that you were partially at fault for some reason — speeding, distracted, failed to wear seatbelt, didn’t take evasive action.

The seatbelt defense is particularly common. If you were not wearing a seatbelt and you suffered injuries that a seatbelt would have prevented, the insurer will argue your damages should be reduced by 5–25% for failure to mitigate. Arizona courts have allowed this argument in some cases.

The rebuttal usually requires expert biomechanical or medical testimony showing the specific injury would have occurred regardless of seatbelt use, or that the driver’s fault was so minor it doesn’t justify the reduction.

Joint and Several Liability Was Abolished

Arizona also abolished joint and several liability for most cases. This means each defendant is responsible only for their share of fault, not for the entire judgment if other defendants can’t pay.

In practice: if Driver A is 70% at fault and Driver B is 30% at fault for your injuries, and Driver A is uninsured/judgment-proof, you can only recover 30% of your damages from Driver B (assuming Driver B has insurance). You cannot collect the full judgment from Driver B. This makes uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage on your own auto policy critical in Arizona.

Strategic Implications for Your Case

Three things flow from Arizona’s pure comparative negligence:

1. Even if you think you were partly at fault, you may still have a case. Don’t self-disqualify.

2. Don’t admit fault to insurance adjusters or in police reports. Statements like “I think I was going a little fast” become percentage-of-fault arguments.

3. Carry strong UM/UIM coverage on your own auto policy. With joint and several liability abolished, you cannot rely on a deep-pocket defendant to cover an underinsured at-fault driver’s share.

What This Means for Your Case

If you were involved in an Arizona accident and the insurance adjuster is suggesting you were partially at fault, that is exactly when you need an Arizona personal injury attorney. We push back on the percentage assignment. We document your conduct accurately. We make sure the insurer’s comparative-negligence argument doesn’t go unchallenged.

Free case review available 24/7. No fee unless we win.

This article provides general information about Arizona law and is not legal advice. Every case is fact-specific. For advice on your particular situation, contact an Arizona-licensed attorney.