How to Handle Multiple Defendants in a Single Wrongful Death Suit in Arizona

TL;DR

Handling a wrongful death lawsuit in Arizona with multiple defendants requires a focused legal strategy centered on identifying every responsible party and proving their specific percentage of fault. Under Arizona’s pure comparative fault system (A.R.S. § 12-2506), each defendant is typically only liable for the portion of damages that corresponds to their assigned degree of blame. Success depends on a thorough investigation to uncover all contributors, from individuals to corporations, and gathering distinct evidence to establish each one’s liability. This process involves managing complex legal procedures, countering defenses where defendants blame each other, and negotiating with multiple insurance carriers to secure fair compensation for the statutory beneficiaries.

Key Highlights

• Identify All Parties: A complete investigation is essential to find every person, company, or entity that contributed to the death.
• Understand Comparative Fault: Arizona law requires a jury to assign a percentage of fault to each defendant, which determines how much they pay.
• Gather Specific Evidence: You must build a separate case against each defendant, proving how their specific actions or negligence caused the harm.
• Counter “Finger-Pointing” Defenses: Be prepared for defendants to shift blame to one another to minimize their own financial responsibility.
• Negotiate Strategically: Settlement talks may involve multiple insurance companies and legal teams, requiring a coordinated approach to achieve a global resolution.

Losing a family member is a profound and life-altering event. When that loss is caused by the negligence of others, Arizona law provides a path for surviving family members to seek justice through a wrongful death claim. These claims arise from a wide range of situations, including complex multi-vehicle collisions on I-10, incidents at construction sites in Phoenix, or cases of medical error in a Tucson hospital. According to the Arizona Department of Health Services, unintentional injuries remain a leading cause of death in the state, highlighting the unfortunate frequency of preventable fatalities. Pursuing a claim becomes significantly more intricate when the tragedy results from the combined actions of more than one person or entity.

The legal foundation for these complex cases in Arizona is built upon specific state statutes. A wrongful death action is authorized by A.R.S. § 12-611, which allows a claim to be brought when a person’s death is “caused by a wrongful act, neglect or default” of another. When multiple parties are involved, the case is governed by the principles of comparative fault, detailed in the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (A.R.S. § 12-2506). This law dictates that fault is allocated among all responsible parties, including the deceased person if their own actions contributed to the incident. Unlike some states, Arizona law generally holds each defendant responsible only for their share of the fault, a concept known as “several liability.” Understanding this framework is the first step for any family considering legal action.

When multiple parties share responsibility for a death, the legal challenge grows, but so does the potential for securing the resources your family needs to move forward. The process requires a meticulous approach to prove how each defendant contributed to the outcome. It involves untangling a web of actions and inactions to present a clear picture of shared blame to a judge or jury. This requires a legal strategy designed to hold every negligent party accountable for their specific role in the tragedy, ensuring that no contributor escapes their responsibility.

Identifying Every Potential Defendant: The Critical First Step

The initial and most crucial phase in a multi-defendant wrongful death suit is identifying every single person, company, or government entity that may have played a role in the fatal incident. Overlooking even one potentially liable party can limit your family’s ability to recover full compensation. A single event often has multiple causes, and a thorough investigation is necessary to uncover them all. This goes far beyond the obvious and requires looking at every contributing factor.

For example, a tragic car crash may seem straightforward at first glance, but a deeper look can reveal a more complicated picture. The driver who ran a red light is clearly a defendant, but other parties might also be responsible.

• The Employer: Was the driver on the clock for their job? If so, their employer could be held responsible under a legal doctrine called “vicarious liability.” This holds an employer accountable for the negligent acts of an employee performing job-related duties.
• The Vehicle Manufacturer: Did the car’s brakes fail or an airbag fail to deploy? A defect in the vehicle’s design or manufacturing could make the car company a defendant.
• A Government Entity: Was the intersection poorly designed or a traffic signal malfunctioning? The city or state entity responsible for road maintenance and safety could share in the blame.
• A Bar or Restaurant: Did the driver who caused the crash come from a bar that continued to serve them alcohol even though they were visibly intoxicated? Arizona’s dram shop laws could make that establishment a defendant.

This same principle applies to other common wrongful death scenarios:

• Medical Malpractice: A patient’s death in a hospital could be the fault of a surgeon’s mistake, an anesthesiologist’s error, a nurse’s failure to monitor vital signs, and the hospital’s negligent hiring practices or understaffing. In such cases, the doctor, nurse, and hospital administration are all potential defendants.
• Construction Site Incidents: If a worker falls from scaffolding, potential defendants could include the general contractor for failing to enforce safety protocols, a subcontractor for improperly erecting the scaffolding, and the manufacturer of a faulty safety harness. The property owner might also be liable for failing to maintain a safe site.
• Premises Liability: A fatal slip and fall at a commercial property could involve the property owner who failed to fix a known hazard, a management company responsible for day-to-day operations, and a third-party cleaning crew that created a slippery surface without proper warnings.

A proper investigation involves more than just reviewing a police report. It requires a proactive and comprehensive effort to gather evidence. This can include hiring accident reconstruction experts, consulting with medical professionals, reviewing corporate safety records, examining product blueprints, and interviewing witnesses. The goal is to build a complete map of the incident and identify every link in the chain of causation that led to your loved one’s death. Failing to do so early in the process may prevent you from adding a defendant later, as Arizona’s two-year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims (A.R.S. § 12-542) is strict.

Understanding Arizona’s System of Pure Comparative Fault and Liability

Once all potential defendants are identified, the next step is to understand how Arizona law assigns financial responsibility. Arizona operates under a system of “pure comparative fault,” which is a critical concept in any personal injury or wrongful death case, especially those with multiple defendants. This system is outlined in A.R.S. § 12-2506.

In simple terms, comparative fault means that a jury is asked to look at the actions of everyone involved in an incident and assign a percentage of fault to each person or entity. This includes the plaintiff (in a wrongful death case, the deceased person) and every defendant. For example, in a three-car pileup, a jury might find:

• Defendant Driver A is 50% at fault.
• Defendant Driver B is 30% at fault.
• The deceased person (for a minor traffic violation) is 20% at fault.

The “pure” aspect of Arizona’s law means that a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are found to be 99% at fault. Their total damages would simply be reduced by their percentage of fault. In the example above, if the total damages were determined to be $1 million, the family could still recover $800,000 (the total damages minus the deceased’s 20% of fault).

Several Liability: The General Rule

The most important consequence of this system in a multi-defendant case is the principle of “several liability.” This means that, in most cases, each defendant is only responsible for paying the portion of the damages that directly corresponds to their percentage of fault.

Using the same example:

• Defendant Driver A (50% at fault) would be responsible for paying $500,000 (50% of $1 million).
• Defendant Driver B (30% at fault) would be responsible for paying $300,000 (30% of $1 million).

The family cannot collect the full $800,000 from Defendant A, even if Defendant B is uninsured or unable to pay. This is different from “joint and several liability,” a system used in some other states where any single defendant could be forced to pay the entire judgment, regardless of their percentage of fault.

Exceptions to Several Liability

While several liability is the general rule in Arizona, there are important exceptions where “joint liability” can be applied. In these situations, one defendant can be held responsible for the entire amount of damages owed by another party. These exceptions include:

1. Acting in Concert: If two or more defendants intentionally worked together to cause the harm, they can be held jointly liable. This is common in cases of assault or conspiracy but can also apply in situations where defendants knowingly engaged in a dangerous activity together, like street racing.
2. Vicarious Liability: As mentioned earlier, when an employer is held liable for an employee’s actions, the employer and employee are often considered a single unit for allocating fault.
3. Specific Statutes: Certain Arizona laws, particularly those related to hazardous waste, can impose joint liability on polluters.

Understanding which rule applies is fundamental to case strategy. If several liability is the rule, you must be able to collect from each defendant individually. If a joint liability exception applies, it provides a safety net, allowing you to collect the full amount from a defendant with deeper pockets (like a large corporation) if another defendant is insolvent.

Building a Case: Evidence and Strategy for Each Defendant

A wrongful death lawsuit with multiple defendants is not one case; it is several interconnected cases rolled into one. You cannot use a blanket approach. A successful outcome requires building a distinct and compelling case against each defendant, proving both their negligence and how that negligence was a direct cause of the death. This means your legal team must develop a unique strategy and gather specific evidence tailored to each party.

The core of any negligence claim is proving four elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. In a multi-defendant suit, you must prove these four elements for every single defendant.

• Duty: What legal responsibility did this defendant have? (e.g., a driver’s duty to obey traffic laws, a doctor’s duty to provide a certain standard of care).
• Breach: How did the defendant fail to meet that responsibility? (e.g., the driver was speeding, the doctor misread a lab report).
• Causation: How did the defendant’s specific failure contribute to the death? This is often the most contested element.
• Damages: What are the financial and emotional losses suffered by the family as a result of the death?

To prove these elements for each defendant, a wide range of evidence is necessary:

• For a Negligent Driver: Police reports, traffic camera footage, vehicle “black box” data, cell phone records to check for distracted driving, and testimony from accident reconstruction experts.
• For a Medical Professional or Hospital: Medical records, hospital policies and procedures, deposition testimony from other medical staff, and expert opinions from other doctors who can testify about the standard of care.
• For a Product Manufacturer: Internal company documents, product design specifications, testing data, recall information, and testimony from engineers and design experts.
• For a Property Owner: Maintenance logs, security camera footage, internal incident reports, and witness statements about the hazardous condition.

One of the biggest challenges is proving causation for each defendant. Defense attorneys will work hard to show that their client’s actions, even if negligent, were not a substantial factor in the death. They will point fingers at the other defendants, arguing that someone else was the “real” cause. Your legal team must be prepared to connect the dots for the jury, showing how the combined negligence of all defendants created the circumstances that led to the tragedy. This often requires using expert witnesses who can explain complex technical or medical information in a way that is easy for a jury to understand.

The Legal Process: Pleadings, Discovery, and Motions

The formal legal process for a multi-defendant case is more demanding than a standard lawsuit. Every step, from the initial filing to pre-trial motions, requires careful management and strategic thinking.

1. Filing the Complaint: The lawsuit begins by filing a “complaint” with the court. This document names all the identified defendants and lays out the legal claims against each one. It must clearly state the facts of the incident and explain why each defendant is believed to be liable.

2. The Discovery Phase: After the complaint is filed and the defendants have responded, the “discovery” phase begins. This is the formal process of information gathering where all parties exchange evidence. With multiple defendants, discovery becomes a massive undertaking. Your legal team will have to:

• Manage Multiple Document Requests: Each defendant will have their own set of documents to produce, such as business records, safety manuals, or medical charts.
• Conduct Numerous Depositions: A deposition is sworn testimony given out of court. Your arizona wrongful death attorney will need to depose key individuals from each defendant’s side, and in turn, each defendant’s legal team will want to depose the plaintiffs and their witnesses. This can result in dozens of depositions.
• Answer Multiple Sets of Interrogatories: Interrogatories are written questions that must be answered under oath. Each defendant will serve their own set of questions, all requiring detailed responses.

3. Countering Defense Tactics: The most common defense strategy in a multi-defendant case is blame-shifting. Each defendant’s legal team will try to minimize their client’s fault by maximizing the fault of the other defendants. This is often called the “empty chair” defense, where a defendant points to another party (sometimes one who isn’t even part of the lawsuit) as the primary cause.

To counter this, your legal team must remain focused on the central theme of shared responsibility. The strategy is not to defend one defendant against another but to show the jury how each one’s negligence was a necessary piece of the puzzle. By presenting a unified front that holds everyone accountable, you can prevent the defendants from successfully deflecting blame.

4. Pre-Trial Motions: Before a trial begins, defendants may file various motions to try to get the case against them dismissed or to limit the evidence that can be presented. A common motion is a “motion for summary judgment,” where a defendant argues that, based on the undisputed facts, there is no way they can legally be held liable. With multiple defendants, your team must be prepared to fight off several of these motions, each requiring a detailed legal brief and oral argument.

Settlement Negotiations with Multiple Insurers and Legal Teams

The vast majority of wrongful death cases are resolved through a settlement rather than a jury trial. However, negotiating a settlement with multiple defendants adds layers of complexity. You are not dealing with one defendant and one insurance company, but a room full of defense lawyers and insurance adjusters, each with their own interests.

A key strategic decision is whether to pursue a “global settlement” or to settle with defendants individually.

• Global Settlement: This is an agreement where all defendants contribute to a single settlement fund to resolve the entire case. This is often the cleanest and most efficient approach, as it provides finality for the family. However, getting all parties to agree on their respective contributions can be difficult, especially if one defendant believes they have very little liability.
• Individual Settlements: It is also possible to settle with one or more defendants while continuing the lawsuit against the others. This can be a good strategy if one defendant’s insurance policy limits are low or if they make a reasonable offer early on. This provides the family with some immediate funds and allows them to focus their resources on the remaining, more culpable defendants. However, there are risks. Under Arizona law, the amount of any settlement is typically deducted from the final verdict against the remaining defendants at trial.

Mediation is often used to facilitate settlement talks in these complex cases. A neutral third-party mediator helps all the parties communicate and works to find common ground. A skilled mediator can be invaluable in breaking through the finger-pointing and helping the defendants and their insurers see the wisdom of contributing to a fair global settlement rather than risking a large jury verdict.

Throughout the negotiation process, it is vital to have a clear understanding of all available insurance coverage. This includes not only the primary liability policies but also any excess or umbrella policies that might be available. A thorough investigation into insurance coverage is just as important as the investigation into the incident itself.

Calculating and Distributing Damages in a Multi-Defendant Case

In an Arizona wrongful death claim, the surviving family members (known as “statutory beneficiaries”) are entitled to seek compensation for their losses. The lawsuit is typically filed by a surviving spouse, child, parent, or the personal representative of the deceased’s estate on behalf of all beneficiaries.

Types of Damages: Under A.R.S. § 12-613, the jury is instructed to award damages that are “fair and just with reference to the injury resulting from the death.” These damages can include:

• Economic Losses:
  • The lost income and earnings the deceased would have provided to the family.
  • The value of lost household services (e.g., childcare, home maintenance).
  • Medical bills incurred between the injury and the death.
  • Funeral and burial expenses.
• Non-Economic Losses:
  • The sorrow, grief, and mental anguish of the surviving family members.
  • The loss of love, companionship, comfort, and guidance.
  • The pain and suffering experienced by the deceased person before their death.

How Fault Allocation Affects Payment: The jury’s allocation of fault is directly tied to the payment of these damages. Let’s imagine a jury awards a total of $2 million in damages in a case with two defendants and finds the following percentages of fault:

• Defendant A: 70% at fault
• Defendant B: 30% at fault

Under Arizona’s several liability rule, the payment would be structured as follows:

• Defendant A is responsible for paying $1,400,000 (70% of $2 million).
• Defendant B is responsible for paying $600,000 (30% of $2 million).

The plaintiffs’ legal team is then responsible for collecting these amounts from the respective defendants or their insurance companies.

Distribution Among Beneficiaries: Once the funds are recovered, whether through a settlement or a verdict, they must be distributed among the statutory beneficiaries. If the family members can agree on a division, they can submit it to the court for approval. If they cannot agree, the court will determine a fair and equitable distribution based on the individual losses of each person. For example, a young child who has lost a parent may be deemed to have suffered a greater loss of future guidance and support than an adult parent who has lost an adult child, and the distribution may reflect that. Any liens on the settlement (such as those from health insurance companies that paid medical bills) must also be resolved before the final funds are distributed.

Conclusion

Pursuing a wrongful death claim involving multiple responsible parties in Arizona presents unique legal hurdles. The process is far more involved than a case against a single individual. Success hinges on a comprehensive initial investigation to identify every party whose negligence contributed to the loss. It requires a deep understanding of Arizona’s pure comparative fault and several liability statutes, which dictate that each defendant is generally only responsible for their specific share of the blame. Building a powerful case involves gathering distinct evidence against each defendant and crafting a legal strategy that can withstand the inevitable “finger-pointing” defenses where each party tries to shift blame to the others.

From managing a sprawling discovery process with numerous depositions and document requests to engaging in complex settlement negotiations with multiple insurance carriers, every stage demands precision and experience. The ultimate goal is to present a clear, cohesive narrative to a jury or mediator that demonstrates how the combined actions of all defendants led to the tragic outcome. By methodically establishing each party’s percentage of fault, you can hold every contributor accountable for the harm they caused.

Losing a loved one due to someone else’s negligence is a painful and disorienting experience. Facing a complex legal battle at the same time can feel like an impossible burden. If your family is in this situation, it is critical to understand your legal rights and the steps needed to protect your claim. The two-year statute of limitations in Arizona means that time is of the essence. Seeking guidance from a legal professional who is experienced in handling multi-defendant wrongful death litigation can provide the clarity and direction your family needs to seek justice and secure your future. Contact us for free evaluation today.