Comparative Fault in Missouri Car Accidents: How It Works

In the aftermath of a car accident, determining liability is a crucial step in resolving insurance claims and potential lawsuits. Missouri follows a "pure comparative fault" system, which plays a significant role in these determinations. Understanding the nuances of this system is vital for anyone involved in a car crash in Missouri. This article delves into the comparative fault system, examines the relevant statute, provides detailed case examples, and discusses how comparative fault affects both liability and damages.

Understanding Comparative Fault

Missouri's comparative fault system is codified in Missouri Revised Statutes Section 537.765. Under this system, each party involved in an accident is assigned a percentage of fault, and their compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault. Importantly, Missouri's system is "pure" comparative fault, meaning that even if a plaintiff is found to be 99% at fault, they can still recover 1% of their damages. This system contrasts with "modified" comparative fault systems in other states, where a plaintiff may be barred from recovery if they are found to be 50% or more at fault.

Missouri Revised Statutes Section 537.765

The statute reads:

"In all actions for damages on account of injury or death or economic loss to person or property, the contributory fault of any person shall not bar recovery, but the amount of damages recoverable shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributed to the person recovering such damages."

This statute ensures that plaintiffs can seek compensation regardless of their degree of fault, with the compensation adjusted according to their share of responsibility.

Case Examples: How Comparative Fault Affects Liability

  1. Hopfinger v. Kidder International, Inc.

    • Summary: In this case, a skier suffered a head injury while using skis designed for expert-level skiers, which were deemed unreasonably dangerous for their skill level.

    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant failed to warn against the added danger and unpredictability caused by the ski design. The skier's contributory fault did not bar recovery, demonstrating Missouri's adherence to the comparative fault doctrine.

  2. Chain-Reaction Car Accident

    • Summary: In a complex chain-reaction accident involving multiple vehicles, liability determination becomes intricate.

    • Outcome: The first driver to cause the initial impact is typically considered the primary responsible party. However, other drivers' actions are also scrutinized, and fault is distributed among them based on their contributions to the accident.

  3. Intersection Collision

    • Summary: Two vehicles collide at an intersection where one driver ran a red light while the other was speeding.

    • Outcome: The court assigned 70% fault to the driver who ran the red light and 30% to the speeding driver. Both drivers' actions contributed to the accident, thus impacting the distribution of liability.

Case Examples: How Comparative Fault Affects Damages

  1. Severe Injury Settlement

    • Summary: In a severe injury case, the plaintiff received a $1,000,000 settlement for head and neck injuries sustained in a car accident. The plaintiff was found to be 20% at fault.

    • Outcome: Under Missouri's comparative fault system, the plaintiff's recovery was reduced by their percentage of fault. Therefore, they received $800,000 (80% of the total settlement amount).

  2. Minor Injury Settlement

    • Summary: A plaintiff involved in a rear-end collision received a $10,000 settlement. The plaintiff was found to be 10% at fault for not maintaining their brake lights.

    • Outcome: The plaintiff's recovery was reduced by 10%, resulting in a final compensation of $9,000.

  3. Pedestrian Accident

    • Summary: A pedestrian was hit by a car while jaywalking and suffered significant injuries. The total damages were calculated at $500,000, and the pedestrian was found to be 50% at fault.

    • Outcome: The pedestrian's recovery was reduced by their percentage of fault, resulting in a final compensation of $250,000.

Impact of Comparative Fault on Legal and Insurance Processes

  1. Insurance Claims

    • Claim Assessment: Insurance adjusters assess fault by reviewing accident reports, witness statements, and other evidence. Comparative fault percentages are then assigned, impacting the payout amounts.

    • Premiums: Drivers found partially at fault may see their insurance premiums increase, as insurers adjust rates based on the perceived risk of the insured party.

  2. Legal Representation

    • Strategy Development: Attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants must develop strategies to argue for a favorable distribution of fault. This involves gathering evidence, securing expert testimony, and presenting a compelling case in court.

    • Settlement Negotiations: Comparative fault percentages significantly influence settlement negotiations. Legal representatives use these percentages to negotiate compensation amounts that reflect the assigned fault.

  3. Jury Deliberations

    • Fault Determination: In cases that go to trial, juries play a crucial role in determining fault percentages. They consider all presented evidence, witness testimonies, and expert analyses to reach a verdict.

    • Damage Calculation: Juries also calculate the total damages and apply the comparative fault percentages to determine the final award amounts for the parties involved.

Conclusion

Missouri's pure comparative fault system ensures that plaintiffs can seek compensation even if they are partially at fault for an accident. This system aims to provide fair outcomes based on the actual degree of fault of each party. By understanding the nuances of this system, individuals involved in car accidents can better navigate the legal and insurance processes to secure fair compensation.

Share