Four systems, and Arizona sits near the forgiving end
American fault law splits into four real categories: pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar, modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar, and pure contributory negligence. Arizona sits with the pure comparative group — the most forgiving toward an at-fault claimant — for ordinary negligence, though it's genuinely worth understanding that this isn't quite the unconditional rule some other pure comparative states apply.
Pure comparative negligence: the ordinary Arizona rule
Under A.R.S. § 12-2505, a claimant's own ordinary negligence reduces their recovery by their exact percentage of fault, with no cutoff point. A claimant found 80% at fault for an ordinary negligence claim still recovers the remaining 20% of their damages. There's no threshold anywhere in the ordinary rule where the claimant's own fault suddenly eliminates the claim.
Modified comparative negligence: a threshold Arizona's ordinary rule doesn't have
Most US states instead use a modified version: recovery is allowed, reduced by the claimant's fault percentage, but only up to a point. Once the claimant's fault reaches 50% (in some states) or 51% (in others), recovery is barred completely. Arizona's ordinary rule has no equivalent threshold built in at all.
Where Arizona genuinely differs from its pure comparative peers
Here's the real distinction worth understanding. Arizona's statute includes a direct exception: there is no right to comparative negligence for a claimant whose own conduct was intentional, willful, or wanton. For that specific category of conduct, Arizona's rule doesn't behave like a pure comparative state at all — it reverts to something closer to the all-or-nothing logic of contributory negligence, for that conduct alone. Most other pure comparative states, including neighboring Alaska, don't carve out this kind of exception from their comparative fault rule in the same explicit statutory form.
An exception that runs only one direction
This exception is also genuinely asymmetric: it strips comparative-negligence protection from a willful or wanton claimant, but a willful or wanton defendant keeps the full benefit of comparative fault. Arizona courts have specifically upheld this asymmetric treatment against a constitutional equal-protection challenge.
Contributory negligence: the opposite extreme
At the far other end sit the five contributory negligence jurisdictions — Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia — where any fault at all on the claimant's part, even 1%, can bar recovery completely, regardless of whether that conduct was willful or merely careless. See our guide to the other pure comparative states for where Arizona's overall approach fits nationally, exception and all.