Start with A.R.S. § 12-2505. In Arizona, Arizona uses pure comparative fault under § 12-2505: recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's share of fault but is not barred solely because the plaintiff was also negligent. Multiple defendants' shares are compared separately. That is the question this guide answers for being sued after a car accident. The personal-injury deadline is 2 years — A.R.S. § 12-542. Arizona is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; injured parties sue negligent drivers rather than being limited to first-party PIP benefits.
Can you be sued after a car accident in Arizona?
Yes. A driver, passenger, pedestrian, or property owner injured in a crash can file a negligence (or related) claim against an allegedly at-fault driver — and against owners or employers in some agency/vicarious-liability settings. Being “mostly not at fault” does not stop a lawsuit from being filed; it shapes whether the plaintiff can win and how much they recover.
You can also be sued even when you believe the other driver is primarily responsible. Fault is usually a contested jury (or settlement) issue under A.R.S. § 12-2505.
Comparative fault and negligence in Arizona
Arizona uses pure comparative fault under § 12-2505: recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's share of fault but is not barred solely because the plaintiff was also negligent. Multiple defendants' shares are compared separately.
In Arizona, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff.
Practical consequences:
- Settlement leverage tracks predicted fault shares.
- Insurers often reserve rights or deny coverage based on comparative-fault findings.
- Multiple defendants (other drivers, employers, vehicle owners) can split fault among themselves under Arizona allocation rules.
How the Arizona rule applies
Apply the Arizona authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.
Two drivers collide in Arizona. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In Arizona, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff..
- Apply what fault does to the claim: Arizona uses pure comparative fault under § 12-2505: recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's share of fault but is not barred solely because the plaintiff was also negligent. Multiple defendants' shares are compared separately.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: 2 years — A.R.S. § 12-542.
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Arizona is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; injured parties sue negligent drivers rather than being limited to first-party PIP benefits.
In Arizona the accident lawsuit turns on A.R.S. § 12-2505 and the pure comparative rule, not on a national no-fault script.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
Arizona is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; injured parties sue negligent drivers rather than being limited to first-party PIP benefits.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Arizona uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.
Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)
2 years — A.R.S. § 12-542
Missing the deadline usually ends the claim permanently. Tolling (minority, discovery rules, bankruptcy stays) can apply in narrow situations — do not assume extra time without counsel.
What to do after a crash in Arizona
- Get medical care and document injuries.
- Preserve photos, dash-cam, witness names, and the police report.
- Notify your insurer promptly; avoid recorded statements to the other driver’s insurer without advice.
- Calendar the SOL: 2 years — A.R.S. § 12-542.
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Arizona) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in Arizona
Alexander B. DIETZ and Irma N. Dietz, Husband and Wife, and Mary Antoinette Dietz, Alexander Rudy Dietz and Amy
…1984. Laws 1984, Ch. 237, § 1. See generally Butler & Gage, Comparative Negligence and Uniform Contribution: New Arizona Law, 20 ARIZ. BAR J. 16 (1984). The 1984 legislation (the “original article”) provided a scheme for contribution between joint tortfeasors, 3 and contained comparative negligence provisions (A.R.S. § 12-2505). The original article, however, neither addressed…
Alexander B. DIETZ and Irma N. Dietz, Husband and Wife, and Mary Antoinette Dietz, Alexander Rudy Dietz and Amy is worth reading on Arizona car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Laws 1984, Ch. 237, § 1. See generally Butler & Gage, Comparative Negligence and Uniform Contribution: New Arizona Law, 20 ARIZ. BAR J. 16 (1984)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Laura CHURCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAWSON DRUG & SUNDRY COMPANY, a California Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
…veral liability was considered to be consistent with a pure comparative negligence system whereby a plaintiffs recovery is diminished by the degree to which the plaintiffs conduct contributed to the injury. Second, the legislature thought it more fair to impose liability according to degree of fault, rather than to have one who is marginally at fault pay all of the damages. Thi…
On car-accident / fault, Laura CHURCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAWSON DRUG & SUNDRY COMPANY, a California Corporation, Defendant-Appellee speaks to the Arizona dispute in this passage: "Second, the legislature thought it more fair to impose liability according to degree of fault, rather than to have one who is marginally at fault pay all of the damages." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Andrew J. WAREING, a Single Man, Defendant/Cross-defendant-Appellant, v. Gary R. FALK, a Married Man, Individually
…gaged in wilful or wanton misconduct receive the benefit of comparative fault principles, thus reducing the negligent claimant’s recovery? We hold that because wilful or wanton misconduct is a degree of negligence in Arizona, and because the UCATA defines fault as “negligence in all of its degrees,” the UCATA permits apportionment of fault between a negligent claimant and a wil…
Arizona opinions such as Andrew J. WAREING, a Single Man, Defendant/Cross-defendant-Appellant, v. Gary R. FALK, a Married Man, Individually are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "gaged in wilful or wanton misconduct receive the benefit of comparative fault principles, thus reducing the negligent claimant’s recovery? We hold that because wilful or wanton misconduct is a degree of negligence in Arizona, and because the UCATA defines fault as “negligence in" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Blake ZUERN, a Minor, by and Through Frank ZUERN and Kristie Zuern, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. FORD
…y, Cota was decided before the UCATA took effect. The Act’s comparative fault system has significantly altered the legal landscape. Under the current statutory system, a defendant is liable “only for the amount of damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of fault.” A.R.S. § 12-2506(A). In assessing the “percentage of fault” of each…
Blake ZUERN, a Minor, by and Through Frank ZUERN and Kristie Zuern, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. FORD is worth reading on Arizona car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Cota was decided before the UCATA took effect. The Act’s comparative fault system has significantly altered the legal landscape." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Allen NATSEWAY and Armida Natseway, Husband and Wife, Surviving Parents of Virginia Marie Natseway, Deceased
…ident on Tempe would be inconsistent with the principles of comparative fault as they are embodied in Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-2505 and 12-2506. In adopting our comparative fault scheme, the legislature intended that the trier of fact consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the harm and intended that each tortfeasor be responsible for only his or h…
Practitioners open Allen NATSEWAY and Armida Natseway, Husband and Wife, Surviving Parents of Virginia Marie Natseway, Deceased when Arizona car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Tempe would be inconsistent with the principles of comparative fault as they are embodied in Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. (“A.R.S.”) sections 12-2505 and 12-2506." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Heidi Leigh DYKEMAN, a Minor, by and Through Her Guardian Ad Litem, Richard DYKEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dan Lee
…ctively abolished by the enactment of A.R.S. § 12-2505, the comparative negligence statute in Arizona. Prior to the enactment of Arizona’s comparative negligence statute, a contributory negligence defense could preclude a plaintiff, whose own negligence contributed in any degree to his injury, from recovering from a negligent defendant. Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc., 149…
On car-accident / fault, Heidi Leigh DYKEMAN, a Minor, by and Through Her Guardian Ad Litem, Richard DYKEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dan Lee speaks to the Arizona dispute in this passage: "A.R.S. § 12-2505, the comparative negligence statute in Arizona." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Stephen J. SHELBY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ACTION SCAFFOLDING, INC., Defendant/Appellee
…ificant because when the Original Act was approved in 1939, comparative negligence was practically nonexistent. See H. Woods, Comparative Fault § 1:11, at 24-27 (2d ed. 1987) (as of 1939, only 3 states— Mississippi, Georgia, and Wisconsin — had adopted comparative negligence principles). We believe that because § 12-2504 is materially the same as § 4 of the Original Act, and §…
On car-accident / fault, Stephen J. SHELBY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ACTION SCAFFOLDING, INC., Defendant/Appellee speaks to the Arizona dispute in this passage: "Original Act was approved in 1939, comparative negligence was practically nonexistent. See H. Woods, Comparative Fault § 1:11, at 24-27 (2d ed. 1987) (as of 1939, only 3 states— Mississippi, Georgia, and Wisconsin — had adopted comparative negligence principles)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Paul GEHRES, Surviving Spouse of Violet Gehres, Deceased, and Helen Melius, Surviving Daughter of Violet Gehres
…al commenced on April 8, 1986, and the case was tried under comparative negligence principles. 1 On April 23, 1986, the jury returned a verdict awarding $527,-600 to Paul Gehres and $50,000 to Helen Melius. In apportioning fault, the jury determined that Speck was 95% responsible, Vinnie’s was 3% responsible, and the City of Phoenix was 2% responsible. On June 25,1986, the tria…
Paul GEHRES, Surviving Spouse of Violet Gehres, Deceased, and Helen Melius, Surviving Daughter of Violet Gehres is worth reading on Arizona car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "April 8, 1986, and the case was tried under comparative negligence principles. 1 On April 23, 1986, the jury returned a verdict awarding $527,-600 to Paul Gehres and $50,000 to Helen Melius." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: pure comparative fault (recovery reduced by your share of fault, with no percentage bar).
- Controlling authority: A.R.S. § 12-2505.
- In Arizona, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff.
- Personal-injury filing deadline: 2 years — A.R.S. § 12-542.
- Insurance: Arizona is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; injured parties sue negligent drivers rather than being limited to first-party PIP benefits.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get sued if the accident was not my fault?
Anyone can file a suit. Winning — and collecting — depends on proving negligence and overcoming Arizona’s pure comparative rules under A.R.S. § 12-2505.
What if I was partly at fault?
In Arizona, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff.
How long do I have to sue after a car accident in Arizona?
2 years — A.R.S. § 12-542
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
Arizona is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; injured parties sue negligent drivers rather than being limited to first-party PIP benefits. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.