Comparative fault is a legal principle used to determine how responsibility is allocated when multiple parties contribute to an accident. In personal injury cases, comparative fault significantly impacts the amount of compensation an injured person can recover. Understanding how this rule works is crucial because even partial fault can affect the outcome of a claim.
Missouri’s Approach to Comparative Fault
Missouri follows a pure comparative fault system. Under this approach, an injured person may recover compensation even if they are mostly at fault for an accident. The recovery is reduced by the injured person’s percentage of fault, but it is not completely barred. In Missouri, even a person who is 90 percent at fault may still recover 10 percent of their damages.
This differs from modified comparative fault systems used in other states, which prevent recovery once fault reaches a certain threshold.
How Comparative Fault Works in Personal Injury Cases
When comparative fault applies, the total damages are calculated first. These damages may include medical expenses, lost wages, property damage, and pain and suffering.
Once the total value of the claim is determined, fault percentages are assigned. Those percentages are then used to adjust compensation.
For example, if total damages are valued at $100,000 and an injured person is found to be 20 percent at fault, the recoverable amount may be reduced to $80,000. The remaining percentage reflects the other party’s responsibility.
This calculation process is a central part of settlement negotiations and trial outcomes.
Why Insurance Companies Focus on Comparative Fault
Insurance companies frequently raise comparative fault arguments because assigning fault to the injured person lowers the amount they must pay.
Common insurer arguments include claims that the injured person:
- Was distracted at the time of the accident
- Failed to notice a hazard
- Did not react quickly enough
- Ignored warning signs
- Contributed to the severity of their injuries
These arguments do not necessarily require eliminating recovery to benefit the insurer. Any assigned fault can reduce compensation.
Types of Evidence Used to Determine Fault
Comparative fault decisions are based on evidence. The stronger the evidence, the harder it is for insurers to shift blame.
Common forms of evidence include:
- Police or incident reports
- Photographs or videos of the accident scene
- Surveillance or dash camera footage
- Witness statements
- Medical records
- Accident reconstruction analysis
- Expert testimony
This evidence helps show how the accident happened and who contributed to it.
Comparative Fault in Common Accident Scenarios
Comparative fault can apply in many types of injury cases. Examples include:
- A car accident where one driver was speeding and the other failed to yield
- A slip and fall where a property owner failed to clean a spill, but the injured person was looking at their phone
- A pedestrian accident where a driver was distracted, but the pedestrian crossed outside a crosswalk
In each situation, fault may be shared. The key issue becomes how much responsibility each party carries.
How Comparative Fault Affects Settlement Negotiations
Most personal injury cases settle before trial. During settlement negotiations, comparative fault is often used as leverage.
An insurer may argue that the injured person shares responsibility to justify a lower offer. The injured person may counter with evidence showing the other party’s greater role in causing the accident.
Because fault percentages are not fixed until a case is resolved, negotiations often involve disagreement over how fault should be divided.
Comparative Fault Versus Pure Contributory Negligence
Comparative fault should not be confused with pure contributory negligence. Pure contributory negligence is a harsher rule used in a small number of states, where any fault by the injured person can entirely bar recovery.
Comparative fault is more flexible. It allows recovery even when the injured person made a mistake, as long as the other party also contributed to the harm.
This difference is why the specific fault system used by a state is so important to a personal injury claim.
Why Fault Percentages Matter
Fault percentages affect every part of a personal injury case. They influence:
- Settlement value
- Jury verdict amounts
- Willingness of insurers to negotiate
- Litigation strategy
Because of this, fault disputes often become the central issue in a case, even when injuries are severe.
Contact Eason Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyers for a Free Consultation With a St. Louis Personal Injury Lawyer
If you were injured in a crash and the insurance company is trying to blame you, you don’t have to handle the process alone. Eason Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyers can review your case, explain how Missouri’s comparative fault rules may affect your claim, and handle communications with the insurer while you focus on your recovery.
Call today to schedule a free consultation with a St. Louis personal injury lawyer.