A.R.S. 12-682, 12-683
Limitation (12-682)
The previously existing common law of products liability is modified only to the extent specifically stated in this article and section 12-551.
Affirmative defenses (12-683)
In any product liability action, a defendant shall not be liable if the defendant proves that any of the following apply:
1. The defect in the product is alleged to result from inadequate design or fabrication, and if the plans or designs for the product or the methods and techniques of manufacturing, inspecting, testing and labeling the product conformed with the state of the art at the time the product was first sold by the defendant.
2. The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was an alteration or modification of the product that was not reasonably foreseeable, made by a person other than the defendant and subsequent to the time the product was first sold by the defendant.
3. The proximate cause of the incident giving rise to the action was a use or consumption of the product that was for a purpose, in a manner or in an activity other than that which was reasonably foreseeable or was contrary to any express and adequate instructions or warnings appearing on or attached to the product or on its original container or wrapping, if the injured person knew or with the exercise of reasonable and diligent care should have known of such instructions or warnings.
4. The proximate cause of the incident or incidents giving rise to the action was the repeated consumption of a food product that is not defective and unreasonably dangerous if consumed in reasonable quantities.
Phoenix Personal Injury Attorneys
Phoenix Arizona Lawyer Defective Products
Phoenix Abogado Lesiones Personales
A.R.S. 12-684
Indemnification; tender of defense; execution
A. In any product liability action where the manufacturer refuses to accept a tender of defense from the seller, the manufacturer shall indemnify the seller for any judgment rendered against the seller and shall also reimburse the seller for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the seller in defending such action, unless either paragraph 1 or 2 applies:
1. The seller had knowledge of the defect in the product.
2. The seller altered, modified or installed the product, and such alteration, modification or installation was a substantial cause of the incident giving rise to the action, was not authorized or requested by the manufacturer and was not performed in compliance with the directions or specifications of the manufacturer.
B. If a judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a seller is granted indemnity against a manufacturer, the plaintiff shall first attempt to satisfy the judgment by levying execution upon the manufacturer in this state or in the state where the manufacturer's principal place of business is located and by making demand upon any liability insurance carrier of the manufacturer whose identity is known to plaintiff before attempting to collect the judgment from the seller or the seller's liability insurance carrier. The return of a writ of execution partially or wholly unsatisfied or the failure of the manufacturer's insurance carrier to pay the judgment upon demand shall be deemed full compliance with the plaintiff's obligation to attempt to collect from the manufacturer.
C. In any product liability action the manufacturer of the product shall be indemnified by the seller of the product for any judgment rendered against the manufacturer and shall also reimburse the manufacturer for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending such action, if the seller provided the plans or specifications for the manufacture or preparation of the product and such plans or specifications were a substantial cause of the product's alleged defect and if the product was manufactured in compliance with and according to the plans or specifications of the seller. If a judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a manufacturer is granted indemnity against a seller, the plaintiff shall first attempt to satisfy the judgment by levying execution upon the seller in this state or in the state where the seller's principal place of business is located and by making demand upon any liability insurance carrier of the seller whose identity is known to plaintiff before attempting to collect the judgment from the manufacturer or manufacturer's liability insurance carrier. The return of a writ of execution partially or wholly unsatisfied or the failure of the seller's insurance carrier to pay the judgment upon demand shall be deemed full compliance with the plaintiff's obligation to attempt to collect from the seller. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply if the manufacturer had knowledge or with the exercise of reasonable and diligent care should have had knowledge of the defect in the product.
Phoenix Arizona Lawyer DUI, Drunk Driving Defense
A.R.S. 12-685, 12-686
Contents of complaint; amount of recovery (12-685)
In any product liability action no dollar amount or figure shall be included in the complaint. The complaint shall pray for such damages as are reasonable in the premises. The complaint shall include a statement reciting that the jurisdictional amount established for filing the action is satisfied.
Inadmissible evidence; state of the art; modification (12-686)
In any product liability action, the following shall not be admissible as direct evidence of a defect:
1. Evidence of advancements or changes in the state of the art subsequent to the time the product was first sold by the defendant.
2. Evidence of any change made in the design or methods of manufacturing or testing the product or any similar product subsequent to the time the product was first sold by the defendant.
Phoenix Arizona Car Accident Lawyer
Phoenix Accident Lawyers, Arizona Injury Attorneys
A.R.S. 12-687
Reasonable remedial measures; cause of action; punitive damages
If a person or entity conducts a product safety analysis or review and, as a result, takes reasonable remedial measures, the following shall apply to a product liability action brought against the person or entity:
1. The plaintiff may not use the product safety analysis or review or the reasonable remedial measures to prove negligence, that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous, or other culpable conduct in a product liability action. However, the plaintiff may use the product safety analysis or review or reasonable remedial measures for other purposes, such as proving feasibility of precautionary measures, impeachment or to controvert any position taken by a defendant in litigation which is inconsistent with the contents of the product safety analysis or review or reasonable remedial measures.
2. This subsection does not prevent a plaintiff in a product liability action from proving negligence, that the product was defective or unreasonably dangerous, or other culpable conduct by other independent evidence or sources, even if such evidence or sources are mentioned or included in the product safety analysis or review or reasonable remedial measures.
3. The plaintiff may not use the product safety analysis or review or the reasonable remedial measures to prove conduct that would subject the person or entity that caused the product safety analysis or review to be performed to punitive or exemplary damages, unless the plaintiff establishes that the analysis or review, or the reasonable remedial measures, were undertaken in bad faith or solely for the purpose of affecting the litigation instituted by the plaintiff.
4. The existence and contents of a product safety analysis or review and any resulting reasonable remedial measures are discoverable and subject to disclosure in a product liability action unless otherwise privileged. However, a portion of a product safety analysis or review may be designated and maintained as confidential and protected from public disclosure pursuant to applicable rules of civil procedures if the portion involves trade secrets as defined in section 44-401, proprietary material or competitively sensitive information. Any dispute as to confidentiality shall be determined by a court following an in camera review of the portion of the analysis or review in question.
Phoenix Lesion Abogado, Accidente Arizona