(314) 222-2486
If an insurance adjuster has hinted that you “share some of the blame” for an accident, here’s something they probably won’t tell you: in Missouri, that doesn’t end your case. Missouri is one of only about a dozen states that follows a pure comparative fault rule, which means an injured person can recover compensation even when they are partially responsible for what happened. Understanding how this rule works is one of the most important steps in protecting the full value of your claim.
What Is Pure Comparative Fault?
Under pure comparative fault, a jury assigns each party a percentage of responsibility for an accident. The injured plaintiff’s total damages are then reduced by their own percentage of fault, but recovery is never barred entirely; no matter how high that percentage climbs.
A simple example: if a jury finds your total damages from a St. Louis car accident are $100,000 and decides you were 25% at fault for the crash, you still recover $75,000. Even if you were found 90% at fault, you could still recover $10,000. That is the central feature of pure comparative fault, and it is dramatically more favorable to injured people than the rules in most other states.
How Missouri Adopted Pure Comparative Fault
Before 1983, Missouri followed the harsh doctrine of contributory negligence, which barred any recovery if the plaintiff was even 1% at fault. That changed when the Missouri Supreme Court decided Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983). In that case, the court abolished contributory negligence and adopted “the doctrine of pure comparative fault in accordance with the Uniform Comparative Fault Act.”
The legislature later codified the doctrine for products liability claims at RSMo § 537.765, which states that “any fault chargeable to the plaintiff shall diminish proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages but shall not bar recovery.” Through Gustafson and the cases that followed it, Missouri courts have applied the same pure comparative fault principles to negligence claims; including truck accidents, motorcycle crashes, and slip-and-fall cases — for more than four decades.
How Missouri Compares to Other States
Comparative fault rules vary widely from state to state, and the difference matters:
- Pure comparative fault (Missouri’s rule). Plaintiff can recover even if 99% at fault. Damages are simply reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility.
- Modified comparative fault (50% bar). Plaintiff recovers only if they are less than 50% at fault. Used in many neighboring states.
- Modified comparative fault (51% bar). Plaintiff recovers only if they are 50% or less at fault.
- Pure contributory negligence. Plaintiff recovers nothing if they are even 1% at fault. Still used in a small number of states.
If your accident happened in Missouri, the pure comparative fault rule applies, even if you live elsewhere. This is why determining the statute of limitations and applicable law early in a case is so important.
Joint and Several Liability for Major Defendants
When more than one party is at fault, Missouri also applies the doctrine of joint and several liability under RSMo § 537.067. The basic rule: any defendant found 51% or more at fault can be held responsible for the full amount of the judgment for compensatory damages; not just their share. Defendants below 51% pay only their proportionate share.
This matters enormously in cases involving multiple drivers, premises liability claims, and trucking accidents where the driver, the carrier, and a maintenance company may all share blame. Identifying the most-at-fault defendant, and proving that the share exceeds 51%, can be the difference between a partial recovery and a full one.
Why Insurance Companies Push Comparative Fault So Hard
Because every percentage point of fault assigned to you directly reduces your settlement, adjusters have a financial incentive to inflate your share of the blame. Common tactics include:
- Pulling a quote from your recorded statement and arguing it’s an admission of fault
- Claiming you were speeding, distracted, or not paying attention without proof
- Pointing to seatbelt non-use, helmet non-use, or other factors as evidence of carelessness
- Using social media posts to argue inconsistency with your injury claims
- Arguing you failed to mitigate damages by missing medical appointments
The fault percentage isn’t decided by the insurance company — it’s decided by a jury, or negotiated by your attorney based on what a jury would likely do. Strong evidence, prompt investigation, and careful presentation of the facts are what keep your fault percentage where it belongs.
Examples of How Comparative Fault Works in Real Cases
- Rear-end crash with brake-checking allegation. Driver A rear-ends Driver B; Driver A claims B brake-checked. Jury assigns A 80% fault and B 20%. B’s $200,000 damages award becomes $160,000.
- Pedestrian crossing mid-block. A driver hits a pedestrian crossing outside a crosswalk. The driver was speeding and looking at a phone. Jury finds the pedestrian 30% at fault and the driver 70%. Pedestrian’s $500,000 award becomes $350,000.
- Multi-vehicle pileup .Three drivers contribute to a chain-reaction crash. Jury splits fault 60% / 30% / 10%. The 60% driver is jointly and severally liable for the full compensatory judgment under RSMo § 537.067.
Protecting Your Recovery Under Missouri’s Rule
The best defense against an inflated fault assignment is a well-documented case from the very beginning. That means a clear police report, photographs of the scene and vehicles, witness contact information, prompt medical care, and a careful, attorney-guided approach to any statements you give the other side’s insurance company.
Rob Schmittgens has handled negligence and comparative fault disputes for injured Missourians for nearly a decade. If an adjuster is trying to push fault onto you, contact Schmittgens Injury Law Firm for a free consultation. There is no fee unless we recover compensation for you.