Does Missouri Bar Recovery if I Was Partly at Fault?
No, and this sets Missouri clearly apart from many other states across the country. Missouri follows a system known as pure comparative fault, established by the Missouri Supreme Court in Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983), and later codified for products liability claims under Missouri Revised Statute Section 537.765. Under this rule, an injured person’s damages are reduced by their own percentage of fault, but there is no threshold that eliminates the claim entirely, no matter how large that percentage is. Before Gustafson, Missouri followed the older doctrine of contributory negligence, under which even one percent of fault could wipe out a claim completely.
How Does the Math Actually Work?
If a jury awards $100,000 in damages and finds a visitor 40 percent at fault for a fall, the visitor still recovers $60,000. Even a visitor found 90 percent at fault could still recover 10 percent of the damages awarded. This differs sharply from modified comparative fault states, where crossing a 50 or 51 percent threshold wipes out the claim completely regardless of how the remaining fault is divided. Missouri’s approach means a fault dispute changes how much a case is worth, but it almost never determines whether a case has any value at all.
Why Does This Matter So Much for Premises Cases?
Property owners and their insurers often argue that a visitor should have noticed a hazard, moved more carefully, or simply looked more closely at where they were walking. Under Missouri’s pure comparative fault rule, these kinds of arguments can reduce a recovery somewhat, but they rarely eliminate it outright the way they would in a modified comparative fault state. Evidence that typically shapes how fault gets divided in these cases includes:
- How long the hazardous condition existed on the property before the fall occurred
- Whether adequate lighting and clearly visible warning signs were actually in place at the time
- Whether the visitor was visibly distracted or looking down at a phone at the time
- Maintenance and inspection records kept on file for the property in question
A St. Louis premises liability lawyer can help build a record showing the property owner’s share of responsibility clearly and thoroughly, since even a partial win under this rule can still mean a meaningful financial recovery.
Why Do Insurers Still Fight Over Fault Percentages?
Even without an all-or-nothing threshold, insurers have every incentive to push a visitor’s fault percentage as high as possible, since every additional point directly reduces the payout. The team at Pioletti Pioletti & Nichols reviews these fault assessments carefully, since an inflated percentage can meaningfully shrink a settlement even when the claim itself remains valid. A ten-point difference in the assigned fault percentage can easily translate into many thousands of dollars once total damages are finally calculated.
What Should I Do if a Property Owner Blames Me for a Fall?
Being told you share some fault does not mean giving up on the entire claim, since Missouri law still allows meaningful recovery in nearly every comparative fault scenario a court might encounter. A St. Louis premises liability lawyer can review the specific facts closely and push back on a fault percentage that does not accurately reflect what actually happened at the property.
Why Does Documentation Still Matter Under This Rule?
Even though Missouri’s rule is more forgiving than many states, thorough documentation of the hazard, the property’s maintenance history, and the circumstances of the fall still shapes how much of the claim’s value survives the fault calculation. Waiting to gather this evidence often means losing access to it entirely, since hazards get repaired and maintenance logs are not always kept indefinitely.
If you were hurt in a fall on someone else’s property in St. Louis, speak with our team about the details of what happened and how fault might ultimately be divided in your case.