Arizona Slip and Fall
Settlement Calculator

Arizona applies pure comparative fault for slip and fall / premises liability cases. The visitor's status — invitee (customer, invited guest), licensee (social guest), or trespasser — determines the duty of care owed by the property owner.

Plaintiff-favorable: Arizona's pure comparative fault rule means you can recover even if you were 70% or 80% at fault for the fall — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage. This is the most plaintiff-friendly standard and makes slip and fall cases more viable even where the victim was somewhat careless.

Statute of limitations: 2 years. Governing statute: A.R.S.

§ 12-2505. Pure comparative fault.

Premises owners owe different duties depending on visitor status (invitee vs. licensee vs.

trespasser).

Slip and fall settlement values in Arizona are driven by: (1) Injury severity — minor sprains and bruises: $10,000–$30,000; fractures requiring surgery: $50,000–$150,000; back/spine injuries or TBI: $100,000–$500,000+. (2) Liability strength — how obvious the hazard was, how long it existed, whether there were warning signs, and how clearly the owner was on notice.

(3) Your fault percentage — in Arizona, even significant victim fault doesn't bar recovery — it only reduces damages proportionally.

(4) Documentation — cases with surveillance video, incident reports, prior complaints, and maintenance logs settle for significantly higher amounts than cases relying on victim testimony alone. (5) Insurance limits — most commercial premises have $1M+ general liability coverage; homeowner policies have $100K–$300K.

Cases against self-insured large retailers (Walmart, Target, Home Depot) can access deeper resources but face experienced national defense teams.

The hardest element in most Arizona slip and fall cases is proving the property owner knew (or should have known) about the hazard. Evidence that establishes notice includes: (1) Prior complaints — complaints to staff, incident reports from prior falls on the same hazard; (2) Maintenance logs — gaps in inspection records show the owner failed to check the area in a reasonable time; (3) Duration of the hazard — a spill that existed for 45 minutes is easier to prove than one from 5 minutes ago; (4) Surveillance video — request preservation immediately; commercial properties routinely overwrite footage in 24–72 hours; (5) Employee statements — staff who knew about the hazard before the fall.

In Arizona, the 'constructive notice' standard requires showing the condition existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have discovered it. The longer the hazard existed, the stronger the argument that the owner 'should have known.' Gathering this evidence quickly — before it's overwritten or destroyed — is essential.