Arizona
Arizona Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 23, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 23, 2026. · 12 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Arizona imposes statutory strict liability for dog bites under A.R.S. § 11-1025, holding owners responsible whenever their dog bites someone in a public place or lawfully on private property, regardless of the dog's prior history. Victims have one year to file a strict liability claim, and provocation under A.R.S. § 11-1027 is the primary defense.
Estimate your claim: Use our free Arizona Dog Bite Settlement Calculator to see a rough settlement range based on the medical bills, the bite location, the victim's age, and Arizona's liability rule.
How Arizona Dog Bite Liability Works
Arizona is a strict liability state for dog bites. Under A.R.S. § 11-1025, a dog owner is liable for damages when their dog bites someone, as long as the victim was in a public place or lawfully on private property. The owner is responsible regardless of whether the dog has ever bitten before or shown aggressive behavior.

This means Arizona does not follow the "one-bite rule" that some other states use. Victims do not need to prove the owner knew their dog was dangerous. They only need to show three things:
- The defendant owned the dog.
- The dog bit the victim.
- The victim was in a public place or lawfully on private property at the time.
Strict Liability vs. Negligence Claims
Arizona provides two separate paths for dog bite claims, each with its own legal standard and filing deadline.
Strict liability under A.R.S. § 11-1025 applies specifically to dog bites. The victim does not need to prove the owner did anything wrong. Ownership of the dog and a lawful bite location are enough to establish liability. Claims under this statute must be filed within one year of the bite under A.R.S. § 12-541, which governs liability created by statute.
Negligence under common law can apply to dog-related injuries beyond bites, such as being knocked down by a large dog. These claims require proof that the owner failed to exercise reasonable care. The filing deadline for negligence claims is two years under A.R.S. § 12-542.
At-Large Dog Liability (A.R.S. § 11-1020)
A separate statute, A.R.S. § 11-1020, makes dog owners fully responsible for any injury to a person or damage to property caused by their dog while "at large." Under A.R.S. § 11-1001, a dog is considered "at large" when it is neither confined by an enclosure nor physically restrained by a leash.
This statute covers all types of injuries caused by loose dogs, not just bites.
2025 "Bite and Run Law" (SB1241)
Arizona passed SB1241 in 2025, adding a new requirement to A.R.S. § 11-1025. Effective September 2025, any person who owns or is responsible for a dog that bites someone must provide their name and contact information to the victim.
Before this law, owners were required to report bites to animal control but had no obligation to identify themselves to the person who was bitten. The new law closes that gap, allowing victims to quickly confirm vaccination status and insurance details.
Failing to provide contact information carries no statutory penalty. A.R.S. § 11-1025(B) creates the duty to provide contact information but does not attach any criminal penalty, fine, or misdemeanor classification to a violation of it, in the statute itself or in the 2025 session law (SB1241) that created it. Some 2025 news coverage of the law described a class 2 misdemeanor penalty, but that would require Arizona's general default-offense-classification statute, A.R.S. § 13-602(B), to apply, and that provision only supplies a class 2 misdemeanor when the outside statute affirmatively declares the conduct a misdemeanor. Section 11-1025(B) never does that; it creates only a civil duty, so the general default classification does not appear to attach here either.
Dog Owner Responsibilities
Arizona law places several obligations on dog owners to protect the public.
| Requirement | Details |
|---|---|
| Leash laws | Many Arizona municipalities require dogs to be leashed in public areas |
| Confinement | Dogs must be securely confined on the owner's property to avoid "at large" liability |
| Rabies vaccination | Required by Arizona state law |
| Licensing | Most jurisdictions require dogs to be licensed and registered |
| Bite reporting | Owners must provide contact information to bite victims under SB1241 |
| Aggressive dog controls | Owners of aggressive dogs must meet additional requirements under A.R.S. § 11-1014.01 |
Violating these requirements can strengthen a victim's case and may result in additional penalties.
Aggressive and Vicious Dog Designations
Arizona law creates two categories of dangerous dogs, each with specific requirements and consequences.
Aggressive Dogs (A.R.S. § 11-1014.01)
Under A.R.S. § 11-1014.01, a dog is considered "aggressive" if it has bitten a person or domestic animal without provocation, or has a known history of attacking without provocation.
Owners of aggressive dogs must take "reasonable care" to:
- Prevent the dog from escaping a residence, enclosed area, yard, or structure
- Control the dog to prevent biting or attacking any person or domestic animal while off the owner's property
Penalties for violations:
| Violation | Classification |
|---|---|
| Failing to prevent escape | Class 3 misdemeanor |
| Failing to control off-property | Class 1 misdemeanor |
Vicious Animals (A.R.S. § 11-1014)
Under A.R.S. § 11-1001(16), a "vicious animal" is any animal of the order carnivora that has a propensity to attack or endanger human safety without provocation, or that has been declared vicious after a hearing before a justice of the peace or city magistrate.
Under A.R.S. § 11-1014, a justice of the peace or city magistrate may order a vicious animal to be euthanized after providing notice to the owner and the person who was bitten and holding a hearing. The owner of a vicious animal is responsible for all fees related to impounding, sheltering, and disposing of the animal.
Victim Rights and Compensation
Dog bite victims in Arizona can recover both economic and non-economic damages under the strict liability framework.

Economic Damages
- Medical expenses, including emergency care, surgery, and rehabilitation
- Lost wages and loss of earning capacity
- Property damage (torn clothing, broken items)
- Future medical costs for ongoing treatment
Non-Economic Damages
- Pain and suffering
- Emotional distress and psychological trauma
- Scarring and disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
Arizona follows a pure comparative fault system under A.R.S. § 12-2505. If a court finds the victim was partially at fault (for example, 20% responsible), the damages award is reduced by that percentage. However, the victim can still recover even if found to be mostly at fault.
Legal Defenses for Dog Owners
Even under strict liability, Arizona law provides defenses for dog owners.
Provocation (A.R.S. § 11-1027)
A.R.S. § 11-1027 establishes provocation as a defense to dog bite liability. The standard is whether a reasonable person would expect that the conduct or circumstances would be likely to provoke a dog.
Examples of provocation include:
- Hitting, poking, or tormenting the dog
- Running into the dog with a bicycle or vehicle
- Teasing the dog with food or objects
The provocation must be significant enough that a normally calm dog would react.
Trespassing
Dog owners generally face reduced or no liability when their dog bites someone who was trespassing. The strict liability statute requires the victim to have been "lawfully" on the property. However, this defense may not fully apply to young children who may not understand property boundaries.
Military and Police Dog Exemption
Under A.R.S. § 11-1025(D), no action for damages can be brought against a governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite occurred while the dog was defending itself from a harassing or provoking act, or while the dog was assisting an agency employee in apprehending or holding a suspect, investigating a crime or possible crime, executing a warrant, or defending a peace officer or another person.
Two limits narrow that exemption. Under § 11-1025(E), it does not apply at all when the bite victim was not a party to, a participant in, or suspected of being a party to or participant in the act that prompted the use of the dog. Under § 11-1025(F), it applies only if the agency has adopted a written policy on the necessary and appropriate use of a dog for that police or military work.
Statute of Limitations for Dog Bite Claims
The filing deadline depends on which legal theory the victim pursues.
| Claim Type | Statute | Filing Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| Strict liability (bite only) | A.R.S. § 12-541 | 1 year from the date of the bite |
| Negligence (any dog injury) | A.R.S. § 12-542 | 2 years from the date of injury |
| Claims against government entities | A.R.S. § 12-821.01 (notice); A.R.S. § 12-821 (suit) | 180 days to file a notice of claim; 1 year to file suit |
Important considerations:
- Minors may have extended deadlines
- The clock starts on the date of the bite or injury
- Missing the deadline typically bars the claim permanently
Breed-Specific Protections
Arizona law explicitly prohibits using a dog's breed as a factor in legal proceedings. Under A.R.S. § 11-1025(C), the breed of a dog may not be considered in findings of fact or conclusions of law by any court, administrative law judge, hearing officer, arbitrator, or other legal decision-maker when determining whether a dog is aggressive, vicious, or has created liability.
Additionally, A.R.S. § 20-1510 prohibits homeowner's and renter's insurance companies from refusing to issue or renew a policy, or from charging a higher premium, based solely on the breed of dog owned by the policyholder.
This means Arizona takes a behavior-based approach rather than a breed-based approach to dangerous dog regulation.
Landlord Liability for Dog Bites
In most cases, the dog's owner is the liable party in a bite claim. However, landlords may face liability in certain situations:
- The landlord knew the tenant had a dangerous or aggressive dog
- The landlord had the authority to require the dog's removal
- The landlord failed to act after learning about a bite or attack on the property
Landlords can reduce their exposure by including clear pet policies in lease agreements and requiring tenants with dogs to carry renter's insurance with liability coverage.
Criminal Penalties for Dog Owners
Beyond civil liability, Arizona imposes criminal penalties in serious cases.
Misdemeanor Charges
- Violating aggressive dog control requirements (A.R.S. § 11-1014.01): Class 1 or Class 3 misdemeanor
- Failing to take reasonable care to keep a dog the owner knows has a biting history or has been found vicious from escaping a residence, enclosed area, yard, or structure (A.R.S. § 13-1208(C)): Class 1 misdemeanor
- Failing to provide contact information after a bite (SB1241): no criminal penalty currently attaches to this duty under A.R.S. § 11-1025(B)
Felony Charges
Arizona's dog-related felonies come from A.R.S. § 13-1208, and each one requires more than a serious injury:
- Class 3 felony under § 13-1208(A): a person intentionally or knowingly causes a dog to bite and inflict serious physical injury on a human being, or to otherwise cause serious physical injury.
- Class 5 felony under § 13-1208(B): the owner knows or has reason to know the dog has a history of biting or a propensity to injure or endanger people without provocation, or the dog has been found vicious by a court, and the dog bites, injures, or attacks someone while at large.
A serious injury alone does not make the case a felony. Without the intentional or knowing element of subsection (A), or the owner's prior knowledge combined with the dog being at large under subsection (B), the matter stays civil or is charged as a misdemeanor. Criminal penalties can include fines, probation, and imprisonment, in addition to civil liability for damages.
How to File a Dog Bite Claim in Arizona
If you have been bitten by a dog in Arizona, take these steps to protect your rights:
- Seek medical attention immediately and keep all medical records.
- Get the owner's information. Under SB1241, the owner is legally required to provide their name and contact information to you.
- Report the incident to local animal control and police.
- Document everything. Take photos of injuries, the location, and the dog if possible.
- Identify witnesses and collect their contact information.
- Preserve evidence such as torn clothing and other physical items.
- Act quickly. You have only one year to file a strict liability claim.
More Arizona Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
How long do I have to file a dog bite lawsuit in Arizona?
For a strict liability claim under A.R.S. § 11-1025, you have one year from the date of the bite (per A.R.S. § 12-541). For a negligence claim, you have two years (per A.R.S. § 12-542). Missing these deadlines will likely bar your claim permanently.
Does Arizona follow the one-bite rule?
No. Arizona is a strict liability state. Dog owners are liable for bite injuries regardless of whether the dog has ever bitten anyone before or shown aggressive behavior. There is no 'free first bite' in Arizona.
What is the main defense to a dog bite claim in Arizona?
Under A.R.S. § 11-1027, provocation is the primary statutory defense. The standard is whether a reasonable person would expect the victim's conduct to provoke a dog. It is not the only defense: the victim must also have been lawfully present where the bite occurred, A.R.S. § 11-1025(D) exempts governmental agencies using police or military dogs, and comparative fault under A.R.S. § 12-2505 can reduce an award.
Can a dog be put down for biting someone in Arizona?
A justice of the peace or city magistrate can order a vicious animal to be euthanized under A.R.S. § 11-1014, but only after providing notice to the owner and the person who was bitten and holding a hearing. A single bite does not automatically lead to euthanasia.
Does the dog owner have to give me their information after a bite?
Yes. Under Arizona's 2025 'Bite and Run Law' (SB1241), a dog owner or person responsible for the dog must provide their name and contact information to the bite victim. However, A.R.S. § 11-1025(B) does not attach any criminal penalty, fine, or misdemeanor classification to a violation of this duty.
Injured in Arizona? Get a free case review from a personal-injury attorney
If someone else's negligence caused your injury, you may be owed compensation for medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Get a free, no-obligation review from a Arizona personal-injury attorney. Most work on contingency, so there is no upfront cost.
Updates
Corrected the statutory subsection citations for Arizona’s police-dog exemption, breed-nondiscrimination rule, and vicious-animal definition, added the controlling felony statute A.R.S. § 13-1208 with its actual elements, and cited A.R.S. § 12-821.01 for the 180-day government notice-of-claim deadline.
Added a note explaining why Arizona's SB1241 dog-owner contact-information duty carries no statutory penalty even though some news coverage described a class 2 misdemeanor, since Arizona's general default-penalty statute only applies when the underlying law itself declares the conduct a misdemeanor, which A.R.S. § 11-1025(B) does not do.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected a fabricated criminal penalty: A.R.S. section 11-1025(B), the 2025 'Bite and Run Law' contact-information duty, creates no criminal penalty, fine, or misdemeanor classification for a violation, in either the codified statute or the SB1241 session-law text that enacted it. Removed the invented 'Class 2 misdemeanor / 4 months / $750' penalty from the body, the criminal-penalties table, and the FAQ.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 11 (Counties), Chapter 7 (INTERGOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS), Article 6.1 (Handling of Animals)
§ 11-1025Liability for dog bites; owner information; military and police work; definitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. The owner of a dog that bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, is liable for damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of its viciousness. B. A person who owns or is responsible for the care of a dog that bites a person when the person is in or on a public place or lawfully in or on a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall provide the owner's contact information to the person who suffered the dog bite. C. The breed of a dog may not be considered in findings of facts or conclusions of law entered by a court, administrative law judge, hearing officer, arbitrator or other legal decision-maker regarding whether a dog is aggressive or vicious or has created liability. D. This section and section 11-1020 do not allow the bringing of an action for damages against any governmental agency using a dog in military or police work if the bite occurred while the dog was defending itself from a harassing or provoking act or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following: 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Weekly v. City of Mesa (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1994, 181 Ariz. 159)“…1 on his claim for strict liability pursuant to A.R.S. § 11-1025 (the dog bite statute) for injuries pla…”
- Spirlong v. Browne (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2014, 236 Ariz. 146)“…definition of “owner” applies to both A.R.S. § 11-1020 and A.R.S. § 11-1025. See A.R.S. § 11-1001 and A.R.S. § 11-1…”
- HEAD v. MESA (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2026)“…in a reckless disregard of his rights or was unlawful. See A.R.S. § 11-1025(D). And he did not adequately address t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Dog Bite Laws by State: Liability and Victim Rights
§ 11-1027Reasonable provocation as defenseIn force
Proof of provocation of the attack by the person injured shall be a defense to the action for damages. The issue of provocation shall be determined by whether a reasonable person would expect that the conduct or circumstances would be likely to provoke a dog.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Stensrud v. Friedberg (District Court, D. Arizona 2023)“…or 3 || circumstances would be likely to provoke a dog." A.R.S. § 11-1027. 4 Here, the parties disagree…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 11 (Counties), Chapter 7 (INTERGOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS), Article 6 (Animal Control)
§ 11-1020Dogs; liabilityIn force
Injury to any person or damage to any property by a dog while at large shall be the full responsibility of the dog owner or person or persons responsible for the dog when such damages were inflicted.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Spirlong v. Browne (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2014, 236 Ariz. 146)“…2Thestatutory definition of “owner” applies to both A.R.S. § 11-1020 and A.R.S. § 11-1025. See A.R.S. § 11-1…”
- Weekly v. City of Mesa (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1994, 181 Ariz. 159)“…ct and immunity is the exception). 4 . A.R.S. § 11-1020 provides: Injury to any person…”
- Stensrud v. Friedberg (District Court, D. Arizona 2023)“…imposing strict liability for those harms. See, e.g., 26 A.R.S. § 11-1020, -1025(A), -1001. Plaintiff was bitten…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 11-1014Biting animals; reporting; handling and euthanasia; exceptionIn force
A. An unvaccinated dog or cat that bites any person shall be confined and quarantined in a county pound or, on request of and at the expense of the owner, at a veterinary hospital for a period of at least ten days. The quarantine period shall start on the day of the bite incident. If the day of the bite is not known, the quarantine period shall start on the first day of impoundment. A dog properly vaccinated pursuant to this article that bites any person may be confined and quarantined at the home of the owner or wherever the dog is harbored and maintained with the consent of and in a manner prescribed by the county enforcement agent. B. A dog or cat that is impounded as the result of biting any person shall not be released from the pound to its owner unless one of the following applies: 1. The dog has a current dog license pursuant to section 11-1008 at the time the dog entered the pound. 2. The dog or cat has been previously spayed or neutered before impound or has been spayed or neutered and implanted with a microchip before release from the pound. 3. There is no veterinary facility capable of performing surgical sterilization within a twenty mile radius of the pound. 4.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
§ 11-1014.01Aggressive dogs; reasonable care requirements; violation; classification; definitionsIn force
A. A person who owns or who is responsible for the care of an aggressive dog shall take reasonable care to: 1. Prohibit the dog from escaping to the outside of a residence or an enclosed area, yard or structure. 2. Control the dog in a manner that prevents the dog from biting or attacking a person or domestic animal at all times while the dog is off the owner's or responsible person's property. B. This section does not apply to any of the following: 1. A dog that is owned by a governmental agency and that is being used in military or police work. 2. A service animal as defined in section 11-1024. 3. A dog that is involved in an otherwise lawful act of hunting, ranching, farming or other agricultural purpose. C. A violation of subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section is a class 3 misdemeanor. D. For the purposes of this section: 1. "Aggressive dog" means any dog that has bitten a person or domestic animal without provocation or that has a known history of attacking persons or domestic animals without provocation. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
§ 11-1001DefinitionsIn force
In section 13-1208 and in this article, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Animal" means any animal of a species that is susceptible to rabies, except man. 2. "At large" means being neither confined by an enclosure nor physically restrained by a leash. 3. "County board of health" means the duly constituted board of health of each county. 4. "County enforcement agent" means that person in each county who is responsible for enforcing this article and the rules adopted under this article. 5. "County pound" means any establishment that is authorized by the county board of supervisors to confine, maintain, safekeep and control dogs and other animals that come into the custody of the county enforcement agent in the performance of the county enforcement agent's official duties. 6. "Department" means the department of health services. 7. "Impound" means the act of taking or receiving into custody by the county enforcement agent any dog or other animal for the purpose of confinement in a county pound in accordance with this article. 8.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Spirlong v. Browne (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2014, 236 Ariz. 146)“…l other than livestock for more than six consecutive days.” A.R.S. § 11-1001(10) (2012).2 After finding the word “ke…”
- Gillis v. Northsand (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2022)“…f Spirlong v. Browne, 236 Ariz. 146 (App. 2014) (construing A.R.S. §§ 11-1001, et seq.). This case also does not turn…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 12 (Courts and Civil Proceedings), Chapter 5 (LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS), Article 3 (Personal Actions)
§ 12-541Malicious prosecution; false imprisonment; libel or slander; seduction or breach of promise of marriage; breach of employment contract; wrongful termination; liability created by statute; one year limitationIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
There shall be commenced and prosecuted within one year after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions: 1. For malicious prosecution, or for false imprisonment, or for injuries done to the character or reputation of another by libel or slander. 2. For damages for seduction or breach of promise of marriage. 3. For breach of an oral or written employment contract including contract actions based on employee handbooks or policy manuals that do not specify a time period in which to bring an action. 4. For damages for wrongful termination. 5. Upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 204 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Alaface v. National Investment Co. (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1994, 181 Ariz. 586)“…nitiated within one year after the cause of action accrues. A.R.S. § 12-541(3); Murry v. Western Am. Mortgage Co.,…”
- Stewart v. Fahey (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1971, 14 Ariz. App. 149)“…relief were barred by the one-year statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-541) and that the filing of a lis pendens w…”
- Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Hogue (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2015, 238 Ariz. 357)“…e barred by the one-year statute of limitations provided in A.R.S. § 12-541(5). Hogue contended that because the La…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Defamation Laws: Libel, Slander & Suing (2026), Arizona Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
§ 12-542Injury to person; injury when death ensues; injury to property; conversion of property; forcible entry and forcible detainer; two year limitationIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
Except as provided in section 12-551 there shall be commenced and prosecuted within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward, the following actions: 1. For injuries done to the person of another including causes of action for medical malpractice as defined in section 12-561. 2. For injuries done to the person of another when death ensues from such injuries, which action shall be considered as accruing at the death of the party injured. 3. For trespass for injury done to the estate or the property of another. 4. For taking or carrying away the goods and chattels of another. 5. For detaining the personal property of another and for converting such property to one's own use. 6. For forcible entry or forcible detainer, which action shall be considered as accruing at the commencement of the forcible entry or detainer.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 497 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kenyon v. Hammer (Arizona Supreme Court 1984, 142 Ariz. 69)“…es at the date of death and is barred two years thereafter. A.R.S. § 12-542(2). Plaintiff argues that Count I of th…”
- Walk v. Ring (Arizona Supreme Court 2002, 202 Ariz. 310)“…rtant, if not irrelevant. 2 The text of A.R.S. § 12-542 reads in pertinent part as follows:…”
- Florez v. Sargeant (Arizona Supreme Court 1996, 185 Ariz. 521)“…informed Gomez of the two year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-542 and that it was the position of the Dio…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules, Arizona Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim, Medical Malpractice Laws in Arizona (2026): Deadlines & Caps
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 12 (Courts and Civil Proceedings), Chapter 16 (UNIFORM CONTRIBUTION AMONG TORTFEASORS ACT), Article 1 (General Provisions)
§ 12-2505Comparative negligence; definitionIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
A. The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk is in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury. If the jury applies either defense, the claimant's action is not barred, but the full damages shall be reduced in proportion to the relative degree of the claimant's fault which is a proximate cause of the injury or death, if any. There is no right to comparative negligence in favor of any claimant who has intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death. B. In this section, "claimant's fault" includes the fault imputed or attributed to a claimant by operation of law, if any.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 64 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. (1986) held section 12-2505 a constitutional enactment that may apply to cases arising before its effective date but filed after. Williams v. Thude (1997) held an instruction directing a verdict against a wantonly negligent plaintiff went beyond what subsection (A) requires.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hall v. A.N.R. Freight System, Inc. (Arizona Supreme Court 1986, 149 Ariz. 130)✓A plaintiff hurt in February 1984 sued that September, after Arizona's comparative negligence statute took effect; on a certified question the court held section 12-2505 constitutional and applicable to a claim that arose before but was filed after its effective date.
- Jimenez v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Arizona Supreme Court 1995, 183 Ariz. 399)✓A retiree injured when a hand grinder's disc shattered won a strict liability verdict after the judge refused comparative fault instructions; the court held section 12-2505 reaches product misuse rather than limiting damages, so refusing the instruction was error, and remanded.
- Williams v. Thude (Arizona Supreme Court 1997, 188 Ariz. 257)✓A jury was told that if the injured driver acted willfully or wantonly she had no right to any damages and must lose; the court held section 12-2505(A) only withholds comparative fault from such a plaintiff and does not bar all recovery, so the instruction was error.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Dashcam Laws: Rules for Dashboard Cameras in Vehicles, Motorcycle Accident Laws in Arizona (2026): Deadlines & Helmets, Truck Accident Laws in Arizona (2026): Deadlines & Liability
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 20 (Insurance), Chapter 6 (PARTICULAR TYPES OF INSURANCE), Article 7 (Property Insurance)
§ 20-1510Homeowner's or renter's insurance; dog breeds; prohibitions; definitionsIn force
A. The breed of a dog may not be the sole factor considered or used for any of the following purposes: 1. Underwriting or actuarial processes for determining risk, liability or actual or potential losses related to claims involving dogs under a policy of insurance. 2. Questionnaires, surveys or other means of gathering information regarding ownership or possession of a dog or the presence of a dog on premises insured or to be insured under a policy of insurance. B. For the purposes of this section: 1. "Breed" means the actual or perceived breed or mixture of breeds of a dog. 2. "Policy of insurance" means a homeowner's or renter's policy of insurance.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- A.R.S. § 11-1025 - Liability for dog bites; owner information; military and police work; definitions(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. § 11-1020 - Dogs; liability(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. § 11-1027 - Reasonable provocation as defense(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. § 11-1014.01 - Aggressive dogs; reasonable care requirements; violation; classification; definitions(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. § 11-1014 - Biting animals; reporting; handling and euthanasia; exception(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. § 11-1001 - Definitions (animal control)(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. § 12-541 - One year statute of limitations (liability created by statute)(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. § 12-542 - Two year statute of limitations (personal injury negligence)(azleg.gov).gov
- SB1241 - Animal bites; owner contact information (2025 Bite and Run Law)(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. § 12-2505 - Comparative fault(azleg.gov).gov
- A.R.S. § 20-1510 - Homeowner or renter insurance; dog breeds; prohibitions(azleg.gov).gov
- New Arizona Law Provides Support to Dog Bite Victims, Holds Owners Accountable - Maricopa County(maricopa.gov).gov
- A.R.S. § 13-1208 - Assault; vicious animals; classification(azleg.gov)
- A.R.S. § 12-821.01 - Authorization of claim against public entity, public school or public employee (180-day notice of claim)(azleg.gov)
- A.R.S. § 12-821 - Authorization of action against public entity or public employee; limitation (one year)(azleg.gov)