PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT — ARIZONA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Count I — Negligence
6. Count II — Negligent Maintenance of Premises
7. Count III — Failure to Warn
8. Damages
9. Jury Demand
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Arizona Practice Notes

CAPTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF [________________________________]

[________________________________],

Plaintiff,

v.

No.: [________________________________]

[________________________________],

Defendant(s).

COMPLAINT FOR PREMISES LIABILITY

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, [________________________________] ("Plaintiff"), by and through undersigned counsel, and for this Complaint against Defendant(s), [________________________________] ("Defendant"), states and alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [________________________________] is an individual residing in [________________________________] County, Arizona.

2. Defendant [________________________________] is [an individual/a corporation/a limited liability company/a partnership] [organized under the laws of [________________________________]] with [a principal place of business/residence] at [________________________________], Arizona.

3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was the [owner/operator/lessee/manager] of the premises located at [________________________________], Arizona (the "Premises").

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article VI, § 14, and A.R.S. § 12-123.

5. Venue is proper in [________________________________] County pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-401, because [the injury occurred in this county / the Defendant resides in this county / the Defendant conducts business in this county].

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Premises and Plaintiff's Status

6. At all times relevant, Defendant [owned/operated/controlled/maintained] the Premises located at [________________________________], Arizona.

7. The Premises were used as [a retail store/restaurant/office building/apartment complex/parking lot/other: ________________________________].

8. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff entered the Premises as [an invitee/a licensee] for the purpose of [________________________________].

The Dangerous Condition

9. At the time of Plaintiff's entry, a dangerous condition existed on the Premises, specifically: [________________________________].

10. The dangerous condition was caused by [________________________________] and had existed for [________________________________] prior to Plaintiff's injury.

Notice to Defendant

11. Defendant had actual notice of the dangerous condition in that [________________________________].

12. In the alternative, Defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition because the hazard existed for a sufficient period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, Defendant should have discovered and remedied it.

13. Despite knowledge or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, Defendant failed to correct, repair, or warn Plaintiff of the hazard.

The Incident

14. On or about [__/__/____], at approximately [____] [a.m./p.m.], Plaintiff [slipped/tripped/fell/was struck by/other: ________________________________] due to the dangerous condition described above.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the incident, Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to [________________________________].

COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE

16. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

17. As the [owner/operator/possessor] of the Premises, Defendant owed Plaintiff, as [an invitee/a licensee], a duty to:

• ☐ Maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition;
• ☐ Inspect the Premises to discover latent dangerous conditions;
• ☐ Warn Plaintiff of known dangers or dangers discoverable by reasonable inspection;
• ☐ Take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable harm.

18. Defendant breached this duty by [________________________________].

19. Defendant's breach of duty was the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

20. But for Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff would not have been injured.

COUNT II — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES

21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

22. Defendant had a duty to maintain the Premises in a safe and reasonable condition, including but not limited to:

• ☐ Conducting regular inspections of the Premises;
• ☐ Repairing known hazards in a timely manner;
• ☐ Implementing adequate safety procedures and protocols;
• ☐ Complying with all applicable building codes and safety regulations.

23. Defendant negligently failed to maintain the Premises by [________________________________].

24. Defendant's negligent maintenance was a direct and proximate cause of the dangerous condition that caused Plaintiff's injuries.

COUNT III — FAILURE TO WARN

25. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of all preceding paragraphs.

26. Defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition on the Premises.

27. The dangerous condition was not open and obvious to Plaintiff, or alternatively, even if the condition was apparent, Defendant should have anticipated that harm would occur despite the obvious nature of the condition. See Perez v. Circle K (Ariz. 2025).

28. Defendant failed to provide adequate warning of the dangerous condition by failing to:

• ☐ Post warning signs or notices;
• ☐ Erect barriers or safety devices;
• ☐ Verbally warn Plaintiff of the hazard;
• ☐ Take other reasonable steps to alert visitors of the danger.

29. Defendant's failure to warn was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

DAMAGES

30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the following damages:

a. Medical Expenses: Past and future medical bills in the amount of $[________________________________];

b. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Past and future lost wages and diminished earning capacity in the amount of $[________________________________];

c. Pain and Suffering: Physical pain and suffering, both past and future;

d. Mental Anguish: Emotional distress, anxiety, and mental anguish;

e. Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Diminished quality of life and inability to perform daily activities;

f. Permanent Impairment: Permanent disability and/or disfigurement;

g. Other Damages: [________________________________].

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable pursuant to the Arizona Constitution, Article II, § 23, and Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant, and award:

a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

b. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

c. Costs of this action, including court costs and filing fees;

d. Attorney's fees as permitted by law;

e. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
Attorney for Plaintiff
State Bar of Arizona No.: [________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Date: [__/__/____]

ARIZONA PRACTICE NOTES

Duty of Care Framework

Arizona applies the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser distinctions:
- Invitee: Highest duty — reasonable care to discover and remedy or warn of dangerous conditions.
- Licensee: Duty to warn of known hazards.
- Trespasser: Duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury; some exceptions for discovered or child trespassers.

Pure Comparative Fault

Arizona follows pure comparative fault under A.R.S. § 12-2505. A plaintiff's damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault, but recovery is never completely barred. Arizona also applies several liability under A.R.S. § 12-2506.

Open and Obvious Doctrine

Under Perez v. Circle K (Ariz. 2025), the open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition is not an automatic bar to liability. Whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous is a breach question for the factfinder. A landowner may still be liable if harm should be anticipated despite the obvious nature of the danger.

Government Property Claims

Claims against public entities require a 180-day notice under A.R.S. § 12-821.01. Punitive damages are not recoverable against public entities or employees acting within scope (A.R.S. § 12-820.04).

Damages Caps

Arizona has no general statutory cap on non-economic damages in ordinary premises liability cases. The Arizona Constitution, Article II, § 31, prohibits caps on personal injury damages.

Statute of Limitations

Two (2) years from the date of injury (A.R.S. § 12-542).

This template is provided by ezel.ai for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently; always verify current statutes and consult with a licensed Arizona attorney before filing.