What this calculator does

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Damages Allocation calculator.

DocketMath’s Damages Allocation (Arizona — Comparative Fault) calculator helps you estimate how total damages might be reduced when more than one person is responsible for the harm.

Under Arizona’s comparative fault framework, damages are allocated based on each party’s percentage of fault. In general terms, the cleaner way to think about it is:

• Start with a total damages amount (often called “total compensatory damages”).
• Assign fault percentages to the claimant/plaintiff and each defendant.
• Compute the claimant’s share as:
  Claimant recovery = Total damages × (100% − claimant’s fault %)
• Then split the claimant’s recovery among liable parties depending on their respective fault shares.

Because you asked specifically for a comparative fault guide, this calculator focuses on allocation math. It does not decide liability, causation, or whether any damages category is recoverable.

Open the calculator

Use the Damages Allocation (Arizona — Comparative Fault) calculator here: /tools/damages-allocation-arizona-comparative-fault

When to use it

Use DocketMath when you need a workable damages allocation number for an Arizona scenario involving multiple responsible actors.

Typical use cases include:

• Drafting settlement value ranges where fault percentages are disputed.
• Evaluating how sensitive the outcome is to changes in fault allocation (e.g., 70/30 vs. 60/40).
• Translating deposition testimony or incident facts into a quantitative model for negotiation or case assessment.

This calculator is most helpful when you already have, or are reasonably estimating, at least:

• A total damages figure you plan to allocate.
• Fault percentages that sum to 100% across all relevant actors.

Time-and-procedure context (Arizona civil limitation note)

You also provided Arizona’s general statute of limitations (SOL) data. For general context only: Arizona’s general rule for most actions is a 2-year SOL under A.R.S. § 13-107(A), cited by the source you provided as Arizona’s statute of limitations law.

That citation is criminal-law oriented in the source link you provided, and this post is about comparative fault damages allocation, not claim filing deadlines. If your matter is civil, you’ll need the correct civil SOL provision for the specific cause of action. Since no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the provided materials, this write-up uses your general/default period only as a high-level reference point.

Step-by-step example

Below is a concrete example you can mirror in the DocketMath tool.

Scenario

A delivery driver (Defendant A) collides with another vehicle driven by Party B. A passenger (Claimant) is injured. A dispute arises over how much fault each actor bears.

Assume the case team agrees on the following percentages:

• Claimant/plaintiff fault: 20%
• Defendant A fault: 70%
• Defendant B fault: 10%
• Total faults: 100%

Assume total damages (before fault reduction) are:

• Total damages: $100,000

Step 1: Compute claimant’s fault reduction

Claimant recovery percentage:

• 100% − 20% = 80%

Claimant’s fault-reduced recovery:

• $100,000 × 0.80 = $80,000

Step 2: Allocate the claimant’s recovery to defendants by their fault shares

A clean way to allocate is to split the remaining 80% recovery based on each defendant’s proportion of fault among the non-claimant actors.

Non-claimant fault total:

• Defendant A + Defendant B = 70% + 10% = 80%

Defendant A’s share of non-claimant fault:

• **70% / 80% = 0.875 (87.5%)

Defendant B’s share of non-claimant fault:

• **10% / 80% = 0.125 (12.5%)

Now apply those shares to the claimant’s $80,000 recovery:

• Defendant A: $80,000 × 0.875 = $70,000
• Defendant B: $80,000 × 0.125 = $10,000

Step 3: Check the math

• $70,000 + $10,000 = $80,000 (equals the claimant recovery after reduction)

That’s the allocation output you’d expect from the comparative fault percentage model.

Common scenarios

Comparative fault allocation appears in many fact patterns. Here are several common scenarios and how to model them consistently with the calculator.

1) Multi-car collision with disputed driver fault

Inputs you typically have:

• Total damages: e.g., $250,000
• Fault allocation across 2–4 drivers
• Potential claimant fault (e.g., failure to keep a proper lookout)

How the calculator changes outputs:

• Increasing claimant fault % directly reduces recovery because claimant’s reduction is calculated as (100% − claimant fault %).

Checklist:

2) Premises injury (hazard vs. visitor conduct)

Even when the “premise” is a key factor, comparative fault often shows up if there’s evidence the claimant acted in a way that contributed (e.g., disregarded warnings).

Model it like this:

• Claimant fault: “how much the claimant’s conduct contributed”
• Property owner/manager fault: “how much failure to maintain/warn contributed”
• Other actors fault: e.g., contractor

Output effect:

• A higher claimant fault percentage reduces overall recovery in a linear way in the model.

3) Shared conduct: claimant + multiple defendants

In complex cases, more than one defendant may contribute, sometimes with overlapping causal theories (speed, signage, vehicle defects, maintenance).

Key modeling principle:

• The calculator needs one set of percentages representing the overall fault allocation—not competing partial allocations.

Workflow suggestion:

4) Uncertain percentages—use ranges

Comparative fault is often a negotiation issue. If you don’t have fixed numbers, you can run multiple DocketMath scenarios:

Example approach:

• Run 60/40 (claimant/others)
• Run 50/50
• Run 40/60

Then compare how sensitive recovery is to those assumptions.

Common output pattern:

• Because fault reduction is based on the claimant’s fault percentage, the claimant’s recovery changes roughly linearly as claimant fault changes (within the simplified model).

Tips for accuracy

To get results you can actually use, focus on inputs and consistency.

Validate that percentages are complete

Before you hit calculate:

If you have “unknown” fault:

• Decide whether the unknown will be assigned proportionally or left out. In most allocation models, leaving actors out breaks reconciliation.

Separate “total damages” from “allocation”

The calculator assumes you’re entering total damages before fault reduction. If you enter already-reduced numbers, you’ll effectively reduce twice.

Practical guardrail:

• If your $ figure already reflects prior reductions or insurance offsets, re-derive a “pre-reduction” total to enter.

Keep categories consistent (even if the tool is not category-specific)

Comparative fault math can be applied to total damages, but you should ensure your total damages figure is consistent with what’s being modeled. For example, if you include:

• Medical expenses
• Lost wages
• Non-economic damages (pain and suffering)

…make sure your total number is the sum of what you intend to allocate—not a subset.

Watch for SOL confusion (general context)

You provided the general SOL period as 2 years and the general statute reference A.R.S. § 13-107(A) from a link about Arizona statute of limitations. Since your prompt also notes no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, treat this as general/default context only, not a claim-specific deadline.

Gentle reminder:

Related reading

• Browse the blog

Related reading

• Damages Allocation Guide for Alabama — Comparative Fault Rules — Complete guide
• Damages Allocation Guide for Alaska — Comparative Fault Rules — Complete guide
• Damages Allocation Guide for American Samoa — Comparative Fault Rules — Complete guide