Comparative Fault in Missouri: How It Affects Your Recovery

You were driving through an intersection when another car ran a red light and hit you. Clear-cut case, right? But then the defense argues you were going five miles over the speed limit. Or that you were not wearing your seatbelt. Or that you glanced at your phone a moment before the collision.

In Missouri, partial fault does not bar your recovery. But it does reduce it — sometimes significantly. Understanding how Missouri's comparative fault system works is essential to evaluating your case and making informed decisions about settlement and trial.

Pure Comparative Fault: Missouri's System

Missouri follows a pure comparative fault system, codified through case law and applied through Missouri Approved Instructions. Under this system, your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, but you are never completely barred from recovering.

This stands in contrast to many other states. Some states follow a modified comparative fault system that bars recovery if you are 50 or 51 percent at fault. Missouri does not have that threshold. Even if a jury finds you 90 percent at fault, you can still recover 10 percent of your damages.

The math is straightforward:

• Jury awards $300,000 in damages
• Jury assigns you 25 percent fault
• Your recovery: $300,000 × (1 - 0.25) = $225,000

The simplicity of the formula masks the complexity of the underlying question: how does a jury decide the percentage of fault to assign to each party?

How Fault Is Determined

Fault determination is the central battle in most personal injury cases. Both sides present evidence designed to shift fault toward the other party. The jury weighs all of it and assigns percentages.

Police reports. The responding officer's assessment of fault carries weight, though it is not binding on the jury. Traffic citations issued at the scene are particularly significant — a citation for running a red light is strong evidence of fault.

Witness testimony. Eyewitnesses who saw the accident provide critical perspective. Their accounts may corroborate or contradict the parties' versions of events.

Physical evidence. Skid marks, vehicle damage patterns, debris fields, and final resting positions help accident reconstruction experts determine speeds, angles of impact, and pre-collision movements.

Expert analysis. Accident reconstruction experts use physics, engineering, and computer modeling to recreate the collision. Their analysis can establish with scientific precision what each driver was doing in the seconds before impact.

Electronic evidence. Cell phone records showing calls or texts at the time of the accident, vehicle event data recorder (black box) information, and traffic camera footage provide objective evidence of driver behavior.

Common Comparative Fault Arguments

Defense attorneys deploy predictable strategies to shift fault onto the plaintiff:

Speeding. Even exceeding the speed limit by a small amount gives the defense an argument. They may hire an expert to testify that if you had been traveling at the posted speed limit, you would have had time to avoid the collision — or that the collision would have been less severe.

Distracted driving. If your cell phone records show any activity near the time of the accident — a text message, an app notification, a phone call — the defense will argue you were distracted. The argument does not need to prove you were actively using the phone; the mere possibility creates a question for the jury.

Failure to wear a seatbelt. Missouri's seatbelt law is interesting in the personal injury context. While failure to wear a seatbelt is a primary traffic offense, Missouri law has historically limited the extent to which seatbelt non-use can be used to reduce damages. The specific application depends on current statutory language and case law.

Failure to mitigate. If your injuries worsened because you did not follow your doctor's treatment plan — missed physical therapy, did not take prescribed medication, delayed surgery — the defense may argue you failed to mitigate your damages and that some portion of your injuries is your own fault.

Pre-existing vulnerability. The defense may argue that a pre-existing condition made you more susceptible to injury. Missouri's eggshell plaintiff doctrine generally protects plaintiffs — a defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them — but the defense may still argue that some damages are attributable to the pre-existing condition rather than the accident.

The Impact on Case Value

Comparative fault affects your case at every stage, not just at trial.

Settlement negotiations. Insurance adjusters factor expected comparative fault into their settlement offers. If the adjuster believes a jury would assign you 30 percent fault, they reduce their offer accordingly. Your attorney's response should address the fault argument directly, supported by evidence.

Mediation. The mediator will ask both sides to assess comparative fault realistically. Candid assessment of your own potential fault exposure is essential to productive mediation.

Trial strategy. Your attorney must decide whether to address comparative fault head-on in opening statement or wait for the defense to raise it. In many cases, acknowledging a minor degree of fault while emphasizing the defendant's far greater negligence is more credible than claiming zero fault when the facts suggest otherwise.

Jury instructions. The comparative fault instruction asks jurors to assign percentages that total 100 percent. The wording of this instruction and the structure of the verdict form can subtly influence how jurors approach the allocation.

Multiple Defendants and Comparative Fault

Cases involving multiple defendants add complexity to the fault allocation. In a multi-vehicle accident, the jury assigns a percentage of fault to each party — including the plaintiff. Each defendant is responsible for their share of the damages, and Missouri's joint and several liability rules determine how those shares are collected.

Under RSMo § 537.067, a defendant who is assigned less than a certain percentage of fault may be liable only for their proportional share of the damages, while defendants assigned greater fault may be jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment. The specific thresholds and application depend on the facts and the applicable version of the statute.

Protecting Your Position on Comparative Fault

Preserve evidence of the other party's fault. Photographs, dashcam footage, witness contact information, and the police report all document what the other driver did wrong. The more evidence you have of their negligence, the less room the defense has to shift blame.

Minimize your own exposure. Follow all traffic laws. Seek immediate medical treatment. Follow your doctor's instructions. Do not post on social media. Every choice you make after the accident either strengthens or weakens the defense's comparative fault argument.

Be honest about your own actions. If you were going slightly over the speed limit, do not deny it. Credibility with the jury matters more than any individual fact. A plaintiff who acknowledges minor imperfections is far more believable than one who claims absolute perfection.

Understand the math. Even significant comparative fault does not destroy a strong case. If your damages are $500,000 and the jury assigns you 40 percent fault, your recovery is still $300,000. The question is always whether the expected recovery — discounted for comparative fault risk — justifies trial versus accepting a settlement offer.

FAQ

Can I recover if I was mostly at fault?

Yes. Missouri's pure comparative fault system allows recovery at any fault level below 100 percent. If you were 80 percent at fault and the jury awards $200,000 in damages, you recover $40,000. Whether pursuing a claim at high fault levels is economically worthwhile depends on the damages and the costs of litigation.

Does the police report determine fault?

No. The police report is evidence of fault, but it is not conclusive. The jury makes the final fault determination based on all the evidence presented at trial. In some cases, the jury's fault allocation differs significantly from the officer's initial assessment.

Can comparative fault be applied to passengers?

Passengers are rarely assigned comparative fault because they are not operating a vehicle. However, in unusual circumstances — such as a passenger who grabbed the steering wheel — a passenger's conduct could theoretically be considered.

How does comparative fault work in a rear-end collision?

Rear-end collisions create a strong presumption that the trailing driver is at fault, since drivers have a duty to maintain a safe following distance. However, the lead driver may share fault if they stopped suddenly without reason, had non-functioning brake lights, or engaged in other negligent conduct.

Does Missouri's comparative fault apply to all types of cases?

Missouri's comparative fault principles apply to negligence-based claims generally, including car accidents, premises liability, and medical malpractice. The specific application may vary by case type, and certain intentional torts are not subject to comparative fault reduction.

Do not let the insurance company blame you for their insured's negligence. Call OTT Law at (314) 794-6900.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different. Contact OTT Law at (314) 794-6900 for a free consultation specific to your situation.