Missouri uses pure comparative negligence: recovery reduced by percentage of fault. Authority: Gustafson v. Benda.
The Missouri pattern jury instructions ask jurors to determine: (1) was the defendant negligent? (2) was the plaintiff negligent? (3) was each party\'s negligence a substantial factor in causing the injury? (4) what percentage of fault, totaling 100%, do you assign to each party?
The court applies the pure comparative negligence formula to those percentages after the verdict form is returned.
In any contested Missouri injury case, fault is not a single yes-or-no. The jury allocates responsibility between the plaintiff and the defendant (and any third parties), and the state's comparative-fault rule then converts those percentages into the final dollar recovery.
Under Missouri's pure comparative rule, fault is converted directly into a damages reduction. A jury that finds a plaintiff 30% at fault on a $500,000 case leaves the plaintiff with $350,000 , no further analysis required.
Pre-trial settlement valuation and trial strategy in Missouri both turn on these numbers. Below: five scenarios at common verdict sizes and fault percentages, with the recovery a Missouri plaintiff would actually receive under the state\'s pure comparative negligence rule.
| Verdict | Plaintiff fault | Net recovery | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | 10% | $90,000 | $10,000 |
| $250,000 | 25% | $187,500 | $62,500 |
| $500,000 | 49% | $255,000 | $245,000 |
| $500,000 | 50% | $250,000 | $250,000 |
| $1,000,000 | 60% | $400,000 | $600,000 |
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Missouri jury, with 10% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Missouri law (pure comparative negligence), the final award is $90,000.
Practical illustration: an injured driver wins a $200,000 verdict in Missouri and the jury assigns 25% fault to them. Applying Missouri's pure comparative negligence rule yields a net recovery of $187,500.
Worked example: a Missouri jury awards a plaintiff $500,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff 49% at fault. Under the state's pure comparative negligence rule, the plaintiff actually recovers $255,000.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Missouri jury, with 50% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Missouri law (pure comparative negligence), the final award is $250,000.
Practical illustration: an injured driver wins a $200,000 verdict in Missouri and the jury assigns 60% fault to them. Applying Missouri's pure comparative negligence rule yields a net recovery of $400,000.
Missouri's rule changes how cases settle. In a state with a hard 50% bar, defense lawyers ramp up fault-allocation evidence , police reports, expert reconstruction, dashcam footage , because pushing the plaintiff over the threshold is worth the entire case. In pure-comparative states, both sides negotiate from a smoother slope.
In contested Missouri cases, the jury is the final arbiter of fault percentages. Pre-trial, lawyers run focus groups and mock juries to predict how an average Missouri juror will allocate responsibility on the specific facts , those predictions then drive settlement leverage.
Missouri comparative-negligence rules only matter if you file on time. The state\'s personal-injury statute of limitations is 5 years from the date of injury (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120). Even an airtight liability case is dismissed with prejudice if the complaint is filed late.
Missouri applies pure comparative negligence. Missouri uses pure comparative negligence: recovery reduced by percentage of fault.
Missouri has no bar threshold. A plaintiff can recover even when 99% at fault, with damages reduced proportionally.
Missouri jurors are presented with a special verdict form asking them to assign fault percentages totaling 100% to each party (and any non-party at fault under joint-tortfeasor rules). The trial court then applies the comparative-fault formula to compute the final recovery.
Yes. Missouri juries can apportion fault among multiple defendants (and sometimes non-party tortfeasors). The treatment of joint and several liability , whether each defendant is liable only for their share or for the entire judgment if others are insolvent , varies by state statute.
Missouri courts vary on the "seat-belt defense." Some states allow evidence of non-use as a fault factor; others (by statute or judicial rule) exclude it. Plaintiffs\' counsel should consult current Missouri appellate decisions before deciding how to handle the issue at trial.
Generally yes , Missouri\'s comparative-fault rule applies across negligence claims, including medical malpractice. Some states adjust the framework for medmal cases (e.g., reducing the plaintiff-fault relevance because patients rarely contribute to their own injuries in the traditional sense), but the basic rule applies unless the statute carves out an exception.
In pure-comparative Missouri, settlements correlate smoothly with projected fault , the absence of a bar threshold makes negotiation more predictable and reduces "all or nothing" trial risk.
Last verified against primary sources on 2026-05-16.