It happens in almost every negligent-security case. The property owner's insurance company looks at the night of the attack and starts asking questions about the victim. Why were you out so late? How many drinks did you have? Why did you walk to your car alone? Why did you open the door?
These questions are meant to shift attention away from the owner's security failures. In some states, they can work, because a victim found mostly at fault may be barred from recovering anything. Arizona is different, and understanding why can change how you think about your own case.
What "pure" comparative fault means
Arizona follows a pure comparative fault system, found in A.R.S. § 12-2505. Under this approach, a jury looks at everyone who contributed to the harm and assigns each a percentage. Your compensation is then reduced by whatever share the jury assigns to you.
The word "pure" is what sets Arizona apart. There is no cutoff. A victim found 10 percent responsible keeps 90 percent of the damages. A victim found 40 percent responsible keeps 60 percent. Your share of fault shrinks the award; it does not erase it.
Arizona law carves out one exception: a plaintiff who intentionally caused the harm. Outside that narrow situation, the rule protects victims from losing everything because of a defense argument about their choices.
Why blaming the victim rarely tells the whole story
A negligent-security case is about what the property owner owed the people on its premises. In Arizona, an owner that controls a property has a duty to protect people from foreseeable third-party crime. The Arizona Supreme Court recognized this duty in Martinez v. Woodmar.
If an apartment complex had a string of armed robberies in its parking lot and never repaired the lighting, a tenant's decision to walk to her car at night does not excuse the owner's inaction. If a nightclub knew fights broke out every weekend and still cut its security staff, a patron who had been drinking did not create that danger. A jury can weigh all of this, and Arizona leaves the question of whether the owner acted reasonably largely to jurors.
Common fault arguments in Arizona security cases
Owners and their insurers tend to raise similar points:
- The victim knew the area was dangerous and came anyway
- The victim was intoxicated or arguing with the attacker
- The victim propped open a door or let someone inside
- The victim did not report earlier problems to management
None of these automatically defeats a claim. Each one is a factual dispute, and each can be answered with evidence about what the owner knew and how little it did.
Context usually decides how much weight a jury gives these arguments. A victim who walked through a gate that should have been locked was using the property as intended. A patron who had a few drinks at a bar was doing exactly what the bar invited him to do. Jurors tend to ask a simple question: if the owner had done what it should have, would this attack have happened at all?
Other Arizona rules working alongside fault
Comparative fault is easier to understand when you see the full framework:
Separate from the criminal case. You are suing the property owner for its security failures, not for the crime. Charges against the attacker do not control your claim.
Uncapped damages. Arizona's constitution prohibits limits on damages for personal injury or death. Comparative fault can reduce an award, but no statutory ceiling cuts it further.
Deadlines. Arizona generally sets a two-year window for injury lawsuits, counted from the incident. For wrongful death, the two years generally start on the date the person died.
Family recovery. In a wrongful-death case, the family can seek funeral costs along with the loss of the person's support and companionship.
Do not let the blame game keep you from asking
Many victims quietly decide they have no case because they feel they made a mistake that night. That decision is often premature. A free review can tell you whether the owner's failures were serious enough to carry the claim, even with some fault on your side.
The Haggard Law Firm has handled nearly 500 negligent-security cases nationwide and obtained a $102.7 million verdict, the largest of its kind in U.S. history. It represents Arizona victims and families on a no-fee-unless-we-win basis.
The firm operates out of Coral Gables, Florida. Michael A. Haggard is a Florida-licensed lawyer without an Arizona license. With negligent security as the firm's core practice and a national reputation in that work, he routinely serves as co-counsel on Arizona cases with a locally licensed attorney and asks for pro hac vice admission in the individual case where the rules permit. Arizona cases are always handled with Arizona-admitted counsel.
To talk through what happened, call (305) 446-5700. The review is free and confidential. To learn more, visit: https://crimevictim.attorney/negligent-security/arizona/
This page is attorney advertising and general information. It does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Michael A. Haggard is licensed in Florida. A prior result is not a promise of a similar result.
