Missouri’s Comparative Fault Law and How It Affects Recovering Damages

In personal injury cases, Missouri has a particular approach to determining liability, employing a system known as “pure comparative fault.” This system can significantly affect compensation for an injured party (plaintiff) if they share some responsibility for the accident that injured them. In this article, we delve into Missouri’s comparative fault law, exploring its implications for plaintiffs, and how it affects the recovery of damages in personal injury cases.

Understanding Comparative Fault in Missouri

“Comparative fault” or “comparative negligence” is a legal principle used to determine liability in civil cases where multiple parties may share responsibility for an incident. In states that use comparative fault, such as Missouri, an injured plaintiff may still recover compensation even if they were partially at fault for their injuries. Their potential compensation would be reduced by their percentage of fault.

By contrast, a few other states use a “contributory negligence” system, which can bar recovery if a plaintiff is found even slightly at fault. There are also states that follow the “modified” comparative negligence system, where plaintiffs may claim compensation only if their share of fault was below 50% or 51% (depending on the state).

Missouri’s “pure” comparative fault system allows plaintiffs to recover damages even if they are mostly at fault for their injuries. A plaintiff can theoretically recover damages even if they are 99% at fault, although their recovery would be limited to 1% of the total damages in such a case.

To illustrate how this works in practice, let’s consider a hypothetical scenario:

Imagine a car accident where the total damages are determined to be $100,000. The jury finds that the injured party was 30% at fault for the accident, while the defendant was 70% at fault. Under Missouri’s pure comparative fault law, the plaintiff may still recover $70,000 (70% of the total damages) from the defendant.

This system aims to provide a more nuanced and fair approach to liability, recognizing that accidents are often the result of multiple factors and parties’ actions. It allows for a more equitable distribution of responsibility and compensation, rather than an all-or-nothing approach.

Implications of Pure Comparative Negligence for Plaintiffs

The pure comparative fault system is generally favorable for plaintiffs, as it allows for recovery even in cases where they bear significant responsibility for their injuries. This can be particularly important in complex cases where fault may be difficult to determine definitively.

However, plaintiffs should be aware that their recovery will be reduced proportionally to their degree of fault. This means that maximizing recovery often involves minimizing the plaintiff’s perceived fault in the eyes of the jury or judge.

How Is Fault Percentage Determined in Missouri Personal Injury Cases?

Determining fault percentages in Missouri personal injury cases is a complex process that involves several factors and can vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case. Generally, the process involves the following steps:

• Evidence-gathering: Both parties collect evidence related to the incident. This can include police reports, witness statements, photographs, video footage, expert testimony, and medical records.
• Negotiation: In many cases, fault percentages are initially proposed during negotiations between the parties or their insurance companies. These negotiations may be based on the evidence gathered and each party’s interpretation of the events.
• Litigation: If the case goes to trial, the determination of fault percentages is typically made by the jury (or judge in a bench trial).
• Jury instructions: In a jury trial, the judge will provide instructions to the jury on how to consider and weigh the evidence in determining fault.
• Deliberation: The jury will consider all the evidence presented and deliberate to assign fault percentages to each party involved.
• Verdict: The jury’s decision on fault percentages will be included in their verdict.

These are some factors that may influence the determination of fault percentages:

• Violation of laws or regulations
• Failure to exercise reasonable care
• Actions taken to avoid or mitigate the incident
• Expert opinions on industry standards or best practices
• Credibility of witnesses and parties involved.

Fault determination can be highly subjective and can vary significantly based on how the evidence is presented and interpreted. This is why having skilled legal representation is crucial in personal injury cases, as attorneys can effectively present evidence and arguments to support their client’s position on fault allocation.

The Role of Evidence in Comparative Fault Cases

In comparative fault cases, the presentation of evidence becomes crucial in determining the percentage of fault assigned to each party. This can include:

• Physical evidence from the accident scene
• Video footage or photographs
• Medical records and expert medical testimony
• Eyewitness testimonies
• Expert witness opinions.

The strength and quality of evidence can significantly impact the outcome of a case, potentially shifting the balance of fault and affecting the amount of damages recovered.

Comparative Fault in Different Types of Cases

While the principle of comparative fault applies broadly in Missouri, its application can vary depending on the type of case:

Auto Accidents

Comparative fault plays a large role in car accident cases, especially as drivers often dispute negligence and liability in crashes. Factors such as speeding, distracted driving, or failure to follow traffic laws can all contribute to the assignment of fault percentages.

Premises Liability

In slip-and-fall or other premises liability cases, the property owner’s negligence is weighed against the plaintiff’s potential carelessness or failure to notice obvious hazards.

Product Liability

Missouri law specifically addresses comparative fault in product liability cases. Section 537.765 of the Missouri Revised Statutes outlines six specific types of plaintiff conduct that can be considered as “fault” in these cases:

• Failing to use the product as anticipated by the manufacturer
• Using the product for something it wasn’t intended for
• Voluntarily using the product while aware of its dangers
• Unreasonably failing to recognize the dangers of using the product
• Failing to use caution as a reasonable user would
• Failing to mitigate damages.

The Impact on Insurance Claims

Missouri’s comparative fault law doesn’t just affect court cases; it also plays a significant role in insurance claim negotiations. Insurance adjusters often use the concept of comparative fault to reduce settlement offers, arguing that the claimant bears a certain percentage of responsibility for the accident.

This underscores the importance of having strong legal representation even during the insurance claim process, as the assignment of fault percentages can significantly impact the final settlement amount.

Here’s how comparative negligence affects insurance claims:

1. Claim evaluation: When an insurance company evaluates a claim, they will consider the potential fault of all parties involved. Under Missouri’s pure comparative fault system, they must account for the possibility that their insured could be held liable for some portion of the damages, even if the claimant was primarily at fault.
2. Settlement negotiations: Insurance adjusters often use the concept of comparative fault as a negotiation tool. They may argue that the claimant bears a certain percentage of fault for the accident to justify lower settlement offers. For example, if an adjuster argues that a claimant is 30% at fault, they might offer a settlement that’s 30% less than the total claimed damages.
3. Increased complexity: The pure comparative negligence system can make claims more complex, as there’s often more room for debate over exact fault percentages. This can lead to more protracted negotiations and potentially more litigation.
4. Potential for recovery: From a claimant’s perspective, the pure comparative fault system means that there’s almost always potential for some recovery, even if they were significantly at fault. This can encourage the filing of claims that might not be viable in states with stricter fault laws.
5. Importance of evidence: The comparative fault system places a premium on gathering and presenting strong evidence about how an accident occurred. Insurance companies will invest significant resources in investigating claims to establish fault percentages.
6. Legal representation: Because of the complexities introduced by the comparative fault system, it’s important for claimants to seek legal representation even during the insurance claim process. An attorney can help counter arguments about fault percentages and negotiate more effectively with insurance adjusters.

It’s important to remember that while insurance companies are obligated to handle claims in good faith, their primary goal is to minimize their payouts. They may use the comparative fault law to their advantage in an attempt to reduce settlements. This is why it’s advisable for claimants to consult with an experienced attorney who can navigate Missouri’s comparative fault system in the context of insurance claims.

At Shea Kohl Law, we have extensive experience dealing with insurance companies in comparative fault cases. We can help protect your rights and pursue your fair compensation based on an accurate assessment of fault. If you’re filing an injury claim and have questions about how comparative fault might affect your case, don’t hesitate to reach out to us at (636) 946-9999 for a free consultation.

How Legal Representation Improves Your Chances of Recovering Damages in a Comparative Fault State

Missouri’s comparative fault law can be complex and have a significant impact on damage recovery, that’s why having a personal injury attorney is crucial for plaintiffs. An experienced attorney can:

• Gather and present compelling evidence to support their client’s position on fault allocation
• Negotiate effectively with insurance companies
• Articulate complex legal concepts to juries in a clear and persuasive manner
• Navigate the intricacies of Missouri’s legal system to maximize their client’s chances of a favorable outcome.

Our experienced attorneys at Shea Kohl Law understand the nuances of Missouri’s comparative fault law and how it affects our clients’ cases. We work tirelessly to help ensure that our clients receive the maximum compensation possible under the law.

If You Believe You’re Partly At Fault in Your Missouri Accident, Talk To Shea Kohl Law Today

Missouri’s pure comparative fault law represents an opportunity for injured plaintiffs to still be compensated even if they were partially responsible. However, this system also allows for defendants and insurers to strongly dispute the value of injury claims.  

If you’ve been injured in an accident in Missouri, protect your claim by having a skilled attorney on your side. Reach out to us at Shea Kohl Law. We have over 100 years of combined experience in personal injury cases like yours, and we’re eager to provide legal help. Call us at (636) 946-9999 for a free consultation and let us help you navigate your complex injury case.