One Percent

One Percent: Arizona Comparative Fault Explained

A share of responsibility does not automatically eliminate an ordinary negligence claim in Arizona. The episode’s percentage illustrates a legal calculation, not a promise that every disputed crash produces a payment.

What the percentage changes

A.R.S. 12-2505 provides for reducing damages in proportion to the claimant’s fault that proximately caused the injury. For an ordinary negligence example, $100,000 in established damages reduced by 30% claimant fault leaves $70,000 before considering other recovery issues. The numbers are hypothetical.

The statute expressly excludes the right to comparative negligence for a claimant who intentionally, wilfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or death. The episode’s “one percent” illustration must be read with that qualification, not as a rule for every kind of conduct.

A proposed percentage is not proof

Ask which actions allegedly contributed to the collision and which evidence supports that account. Lane positions, vehicle damage, witnesses, footage, and timing can be more useful than an unsupported label such as “mostly at fault.” An insurer’s proposed percentage is a negotiating position; it is not a jury finding.

Where multiple people or entities contributed, Arizona’s fault-allocation statute generally makes defendants responsible for their own shares, subject to its exceptions. Available insurance, collectibility, and the cost of proving a case can affect the practical outcome even after the arithmetic is understood.

Use the scene as a question to investigate

Separate three questions: what damages can be established, what conduct caused them, and who bears responsibility for that conduct. A disagreement about one of those questions should not be allowed to silently answer all three.

Questions this episode raises

Is 51% an automatic cutoff in Arizona?

Not under Arizona’s ordinary comparative-negligence rule. The statute reduces damages proportionally and includes qualifications that must still be considered.

Is the calculated amount a guaranteed settlement?

No. The example isolates the fault calculation. Proof, available coverage, other parties, and collectibility remain separate issues.