Missouri Injury Law · Shared Fault
How Comparative Fault Works in Missouri Injury Claims
When more than one person may share responsibility for an accident, Missouri uses a comparative fault framework to divide fault and adjust recovery. This page explains the concept in plain English with a clearly hypothetical example — not a prediction about any real case.
The short answer
Can I still recover compensation if I was partly at fault for my accident?
Direct answer: Under Missouri’s pure comparative fault approach, an injured person who shares some percentage of fault may still recover compensation, but their recovery is reduced by their assigned percentage of fault. So a person found 20% at fault would have their recovery reduced by 20%. Unlike some systems, Missouri’s approach does not bar recovery entirely just because the injured person was partly responsible — but the reduction can be significant, and the percentages are often contested.
Example
Hypothetical: a person has $100,000 in damages and is found 20% at fault for the collision. Under a pure comparative fault approach, their recovery would be reduced by 20% — to $80,000. If the same person were found 50% at fault, recovery would be reduced to $50,000. These numbers are illustrative only; actual outcomes depend on the facts, the evidence, and applicable Missouri law.
Important exception
Comparative fault percentages are factual questions decided from the evidence. They are often disputed by insurers and opposing parties, and the final allocation — whether by agreement or by a jury — depends on the specific case. Nothing here predicts the outcome of any real claim.
Related resources
Key terms
Terms, in plain English.
Plain-English definition
Comparative fault
A framework that assigns each party a percentage of responsibility for an accident and reduces an injured person’s recovery by their assigned percentage.
Plain-English definition
Pure comparative fault
Missouri’s approach, under which an injured person may recover even if they are partly at fault, with recovery reduced by their fault percentage.
Plain-English definition
Contributory negligence
A stricter framework used in some other jurisdictions that can bar recovery entirely when the injured person is even slightly at fault.
How it works
Dividing responsibility, not assigning blame.
Comparative fault recognizes that real accidents often involve more than one contributing factor. A driver who rear-ends someone may be primarily responsible, but if the lead vehicle’s brake lights were broken, both drivers may share fault. The framework lets a fact-finder assign percentages rather than force an all-or-nothing choice.
The percentages are not arbitrary. They reflect the evidence: who did what, what each driver could see, how fast they were traveling, whether traffic laws were followed, and what role each action played in causing the collision. The more clearly the evidence shows each party’s contribution, the more confidently the percentages can be assigned.
Missouri’s approach
Pure comparative fault, explained.
Missouri follows a pure comparative fault approach. The key feature is that an injured person is not barred from recovery simply because they share some fault — their recovery is reduced, not eliminated, by their assigned percentage. This is more forgiving than systems that cut off recovery at a 50% or 51% threshold, and far more forgiving than contributory negligence, which can bar recovery entirely.
The trade-off is that the reduction applies at any fault level. A person found 80% at fault could still theoretically recover 20% of their damages under pure comparative fault, though in practice such a high fault allocation makes a claim difficult to pursue. The framework rewards clear evidence that limits the injured person’s assigned percentage.
Determining fault
Where the percentages come from.
- Physical evidence: Vehicle damage patterns, skid marks, and road conditions help reconstruct what happened.
- Witness statements: Observations of speed, attention, and right-of-way from people who saw the crash.
- Police report: The responding officer’s narrative, citations, and diagram — one piece of evidence, not a final ruling.
- Vehicle data: Event data recorder information showing speed, braking, and throttle before impact.
- Accident reconstruction: Expert analysis that translates physical evidence into a sequence of events and fault opinions.
In practice
Why fault percentages are contested.
Because the fault percentage directly reduces what an injured person recovers, it is one of the most contested issues in a claim. An insurer may argue the injured person was distracted, speeding, or failed to avoid the collision — each argument aimed at increasing the injured person’s percentage and reducing the payout.
Understanding this dynamic helps injured people engage with the process. Strong evidence that limits the injured person’s fault — prompt documentation, witness contacts, vehicle data — is valuable precisely because it constrains the arguments an insurer can make.
Frequently asked questions
Common questions, answered directly.
General information only, not legal advice for any particular situation.
Keep exploring
Related resources.
Practice areas
Kansas City area
Free case review
Questions about shared fault? Request a free case review.
This is the intake experience a Kansas City injury firm would offer: clear fields, plain language and no pressure. On this demonstration site the form is entirely inert — nothing you type leaves your browser.
Demonstration only. No information is transmitted to an attorney or law firm.
- Phone
- 816-555-0100
- Office
- 1100 Main St, Kansas City, MO 64105
Demonstration Case Review
Demonstration form only. Information entered here is not transmitted to a law firm or attorney.