Short answer
Yes, sharing fault does not automatically bar an Arizona negligence claim. Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant's fault that proximately caused the injury. The statute has an important exception for a claimant who intentionally, willfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury. In an ordinary disputed car crash, the practical fight is over the evidence and the percentage—not an all-or-nothing label.
Updated · Written by the Las Oficinas del Abogado Juancarlos team. General information, not legal advice for your situation.
Arizona uses comparative fault, not a 50-percent cutoff
Some states bar recovery once a person crosses a fault threshold. Arizona's statute instead says the claim is not barred when comparative negligence applies; the full damages are reduced in proportion to fault that was a proximate cause of the injury (A.R.S. § 12-2505).
That general rule does not protect intentional, willful or wanton conduct. It also does not guarantee that an insurer or jury will accept your version of the percentages.
A simple percentage example
Suppose a fact-finder determines total proven damages of $10,000 and assigns 25 percent of the causal fault to the injured person. The comparative-fault calculation would reduce that amount by 25 percent, leaving $7,500 before any separate coverage, lien or collectability issue.
That is arithmetic only, not a prediction of any case value. Real disputes involve what losses were proven, which people contributed and what insurance or assets are available.
What evidence moves the percentages
- Vehicle damage and final resting positions.
- Traffic-signal timing, lane markings and sight distance.
- Independent witnesses and nearby video.
- Event-data, phone records or commercial-vehicle records when lawfully obtained.
- Consistent statements made close to the crash.
A traffic citation or police-report opinion can matter, but neither replaces the full evidence analysis in a civil claim.
More than two people can share responsibility
A.R.S. § 12-2506 generally makes each defendant responsible for the damages allocated to that defendant's percentage of fault, subject to the statute's exceptions. The fact-finder may consider others who contributed even if they are not parties to the lawsuit.
That can matter in a multi-vehicle collision, a commercial-vehicle case, or a crash involving a roadway or vehicle defect.
Do not accept a percentage before seeing the basis
An adjuster's first percentage is a negotiation position, not a court finding. Ask what evidence supports it. Preserve your own evidence and correct factual errors in writing rather than arguing from memory on repeated calls.
If you may share some blame, early legal advice can be especially useful because every percentage point affects the final calculation.
Primary sources
The legal and procedural points in this guide are grounded in these official sources so you can read the rules for yourself.
- A.R.S. § 12-2505 — comparative negligence
Arizona's reduction-by-percentage rule and its exception for intentional, willful or wanton conduct.
- A.R.S. § 12-2506 — apportionment of fault
How fault is considered and generally allocated among responsible people or entities.