Arizona Slip and Fall Settlement Calculator
Get a rough estimate of what a Arizona slip-and-fall claim might be worth. Enter your medical bills and losses and answer a few plain questions — the tool weighs how provable the owner's fault is and your share of fault. This is an estimate to understand the factors, not a prediction or an offer.
This is a rough estimate, not a prediction or an offer.
Slip-and-fall claims turn on proving the property owner was at fault — there is no formula that predicts a settlement. This shows the factors and a wide range to help you understand value. Consult a Arizona premises-liability attorney about your case.
Enter the medical bills and losses to see an estimated range
The multiplier method is a rough starting point, not a guarantee. Slip-and-fall value depends most on proving the owner's fault and on the available insurance. An attorney is the only way to value your specific claim. This tool is not legal advice and RecordingLaw.com is not a law firm.
How the Estimate Works
No tool can predict a slip-and-fall settlement. This calculator applies the multiplier method (pain and suffering as a multiple of your medical bills), then does something the thin online calculators skip: it weighs how provable the owner's fault is. A spill the staff caused or knew about is worth far more than a hazard nobody can show the owner knew about. It then estimates your own comparative fault from a few plain questions and applies Arizona's rules.
Proving the Owner Was at Fault
Premises liability has four parts: a dangerous condition existed, the owner knew or should have known about it, they failed to fix it or warn you, and that caused your injury. The middle part — notice — is where most slip-and-fall cases are won or lost. Strong evidence (an incident report, photos of the hazard, surveillance video, cleaning and maintenance logs, prior complaints) is what turns a claim from a token offer into real money. A posted warning sign or cone works against you: it shows the owner did warn, and it makes the hazard "open and obvious," shifting fault onto you.
Arizona Premises-Liability Rules
Open-and-obvious hazards. In Arizona, an open-and-obvious hazard is only a comparative-fault factor (it reduces, not bars). Arizona does NOT use open-and-obvious as a no-duty bar. The leading case is Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board, 146 Ariz. 352, 706 P.2d 364 (1985), where the Arizona Supreme Court held that a landowner's duty arises from the possessor/invitee relationship and is separate from breach. The court expressly stated that whether a hazard is 'open and obvious' is 'a factor to be considered in determining whether the possessor's failure to remedy the hazard or provide a warning was unreasonable and therefore breached the standard of care; it is not a factor to be used in determining the very existence of the duty.' Arizona follows Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 343A: a possessor remains liable for a known or obvious danger if it should anticipate the harm despite the obviousness. The Arizona Supreme Court reaffirmed and strengthened this rule in Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. (Ariz. 2025), holding that whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous (or open and obvious) 'is only relevant to the issues of breach and causation and should not be considered when determining whether a duty exists' — a business invitee is owed a duty of care regardless of whether the condition was dangerous or obvious. Obviousness thus feeds the breach analysis and Arizona's pure comparative-fault apportionment (A.R.S. § 12-2505), not a threshold duty cutoff.
Ice and snow. Arizona applies an ordinary reasonable-care duty to ice and snow, so a poorly-maintained walkway can support a claim. Arizona has NOT adopted the 'natural accumulation' no-duty rule used in states like Illinois and Ohio. A possessor of land owes invitees the ordinary duty of reasonable care to protect against unreasonably dangerous conditions of which it has actual or constructive notice, including water, ice, or snow, under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343/343A as adopted in Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board (1985). Arizona courts treat whether the owner acted reasonably (remedied or warned) as a breach question for the jury, with fault apportioned under pure comparative negligence (A.R.S. § 12-2505). Note: Arizona's predominantly arid, warm climate means there is little appellate ice/snow case law, but no statute or precedent creates a natural-accumulation immunity.
Public property. If you fell on government property, Arizona requires a formal notice of claim — often within about 180 days, much shorter than the normal deadline. Under the Arizona notice-of-claim statute, A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A), a person with a claim against a public entity, public school, or public employee (e.g., a fall on state, county, city, or school property) must file the claim within 180 days after the cause of action accrues. A claim not filed within 180 days 'is barred and no action may be maintained thereon.' The notice must state facts sufficient to understand the basis of liability and a specific settlement amount with supporting facts. Arizona courts require strict compliance — actual notice or substantial compliance does not excuse a defective or late claim. The underlying lawsuit must then be filed within one year under A.R.S. § 12-821, but the 180-day notice of claim is the controlling first deadline.
Your Fault & the Deadline to File
Arizona follows pure comparative negligence. Your award is reduced by your share of fault, but you can still recover something even if you were mostly at fault.
ARS 12-2505 codifies pure comparative negligence: the claimant's action "is not barred," and "the full damages shall be reduced in proportion to the relative degree of the claimant's fault." There is NO percentage bar (a plaintiff 99% at fault still recovers 1%). The sole exception: no comparative negligence in favor of a claimant who "intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to" the injury/death. Comparative fault is a question of fact for the jury.
Arizona generally requires a slip-and-fall lawsuit to be filed within 2 years of the fall (the statute of limitations). Standard PI SOL is 2 years from accrual under ARS 12-542, including medical-malpractice and wrongful-death (death claim accrues at date of death). Discovery rule can delay accrual; minors/incapacity toll. Claims against government entities/employees must be filed within 1 year (ARS 12-821) after a 180-day notice of claim (ARS 12-821.01). Source: Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Bd., 146 Ariz. 352, 706 P.2d 364 (1985) (open-and-obvious goes to breach, not duty; Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343, 343A); Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. (Ariz. 2025) (reaffirming that unreasonable dangerousness/obviousness bears on breach and causation, not duty); A.R.S. § 12-821.01 (180-day notice of claim); A.R.S. § 12-2505 (pure comparative negligence); A.R.S. § 12-542 (2-year PI statute of limitations).
- Arizona uses pure comparative negligence (A.R.S. § 12-2505): a slip-and-fall plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their share of fault but is never completely barred, even if they are 90%+ at fault.
- Open-and-obvious is NOT a defense to duty in Arizona. Under Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board (1985) — reaffirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court in Perez v. Circle K (2025) — the obviousness or dangerousness of a hazard goes only to breach and comparative fault; a landowner still owes invitees a duty of care and can be liable for an obvious danger it should anticipate will cause harm.
- Arizona owes invitees ordinary reasonable care for dangerous conditions (Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343/343A); it has NOT adopted the Illinois/Ohio 'natural accumulation' no-duty rule for ice and snow, though such cases are rare given the climate.
- If you fall on government property (city/county/state/public-school land), you must file a NOTICE OF CLAIM within 180 days under A.R.S. § 12-821.01 — Arizona enforces this strictly, and missing it bars the claim entirely.
- The general personal-injury statute of limitations is 2 years (A.R.S. § 12-542); but the 180-day public-entity notice deadline comes first and is much shorter.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much is my Arizona slip and fall claim worth?
No one can tell you a number in advance, and slip-and-fall is harder than a car accident because you must prove the owner was at fault. A rough estimate adds your economic damages and a pain-and-suffering multiplier, discounts it by how provable the owner's fault is, and reduces it for your share of fault under Arizona's pure comparative negligence rule. The available insurance also caps recovery — an attorney is the only way to value your specific case.
Does a "wet floor" sign hurt my Arizona claim?
Yes, usually. A posted warning shows the owner satisfied part of their duty to warn and makes the hazard "open and obvious," which shifts fault onto you. In Arizona, an open-and-obvious hazard is only a comparative-fault factor (it reduces, not bars). It reduces — and sometimes defeats — a claim, but not always (a hidden or inadequate sign may not help the owner).
Can I sue for a fall on ice or snow in Arizona?
Arizona applies an ordinary reasonable-care duty to ice and snow, so a poorly-maintained or unaddressed icy walkway can support a claim, subject to your own comparative fault. This is general information, not legal advice — consult a Arizona attorney.
How long do I have to file in Arizona?
Generally 2 years from the fall. If you fell on public property, a much shorter notice-of-claim deadline (around 180 days) applies first. Standard PI SOL is 2 years from accrual under ARS 12-542, including medical-malpractice and wrongful-death (death claim accrues at date of death). Discovery rule can delay accrual; minors/incapacity toll. Claims against government entities/employees must be filed within 1 year (ARS 12-821) after a 180-day notice of claim (ARS 12-821.01).
Is this calculator accurate?
It is a rough estimate to show the factors that drive value — not a prediction or an offer. Slip-and-fall outcomes vary enormously and depend on proving fault and on the available insurance. Treat any number here as a ballpark and consult a Arizona attorney.
Disclaimer
This estimator is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome. RecordingLaw.com is not a law firm. The value of a slip-and-fall claim can only be assessed by a licensed attorney reviewing your specific facts.