In Arizona, each defendant in an injury case is generally responsible only for their own percentage of fault, not for the whole judgment. Under A.R.S. § 12-2506(A), "the liability of each defendant for damages is several only and is not joint, except as otherwise provided in this section." For anyone trying to understand what an injury claim may be worth, this rule matters because it can change who actually pays, and how much each paying party owes.
What "several only" means
Under the older concept of joint and several liability, an injured person could collect an entire judgment from any one defendant who was found at fault, leaving that defendant to chase the others for their shares. Arizona has largely replaced that approach. The statute directs the fact-finder to take the total damages the plaintiff can recover and multiply that figure by each defendant's percentage of fault. The result is, in the statute's words, "the maximum recoverable against the defendant."
A simplified illustration of the rule, not a prediction of any result: if total damages were found to be $100,000 and a defendant were assigned 30% of the fault, the most that could be recovered from that defendant would be $30,000, even if another at-fault party could not pay.
The exceptions
The statute names a short list of situations in which one party answers for another's share. Under § 12-2506(D), a party is responsible for the fault of another person, or that person's proportionate share, if:
- both were acting in concert;
- the other person was acting as the party's agent or servant; or
- the party's liability arises from a duty created by the federal employers' liability act, 45 U.S.C. § 51.
The statute defines "acting in concert" narrowly: it requires a conscious agreement to pursue a common plan or design to commit an intentional tort, and ordinary negligence does not qualify. The agency exception is the one that most often appears in everyday injury cases, for example where a driver was working as someone's agent or servant.
Why it affects claim value
Several liability adds a layer to the two moving parts described in our explainer on how Arizona's pure comparative fault rule shapes claim value. Fault percentages do not only reduce a plaintiff's own recovery; they also split the responsibility among defendants, and each defendant's share is a ceiling on what can be collected from that defendant.
Three practical consequences follow:
- Collectibility becomes part of the picture. If one at-fault party has little insurance or few assets, the statute does not generally allow the shortfall to be shifted onto a better-funded defendant who was assigned a smaller share.
- Every party's fault matters. Because shares are apportioned among everyone assigned fault, evidence about how responsibility should be divided can move the numbers for each defendant.
- Nonparties can enter the analysis. The statute provides for considering the fault of certain nonparties, such as those who have settled or who are identified by a defendant, although assigning fault to a nonparty does not make that nonparty liable in the case.
What this does not tell you
The rule describes how a judgment is divided. It does not say what damages will be found, whether fault will be split a particular way, or how a settlement might be negotiated outside a courtroom. Coverage limits, the quality of the evidence, and the specific people involved all remain separate questions, which is part of why, as we explain in why no online calculator can value an Arizona injury case, a formula cannot stand in for an individual review.
The takeaway is that in Arizona, "who is at fault" is rarely a single question. It is a question of how much fault belongs to each person, and each answer sets the ceiling on what can be recovered from that person.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and no article can estimate the value of a specific claim. Statute text is from the Arizona Legislature's published A.R.S. § 12-2506.