How Missouri’s Pure Comparative Fault Affects Your Truck Accident Claim
If you were injured in a truck crash in St. Louis, Missouri’s pure comparative fault system will significantly shape your recovery. Under this doctrine, your compensation isn’t automatically eliminated if you share some responsibility for the collision. Instead, Missouri law reduces your damages in proportion to your percentage of fault. Even if an insurance company argues you were partially at fault, you may still be entitled to significant compensation for your injuries, lost wages, and medical expenses.
If you have questions about how comparative fault may affect your truck injury claim, Halvorsen Klote Davis is here to help. Call (314) 451-1314 or reach out online to discuss your situation.
What Is Pure Comparative Fault in Missouri?
Missouri adopted pure comparative fault through the landmark 1983 Missouri Supreme Court case Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983), which abolished the old contributory negligence rule. Before this decision, a plaintiff who was even slightly at fault could be completely barred from recovering any damages. The Gustafson court directed Missouri courts to apply pure comparative fault in accordance with the Uniform Comparative Fault Act (UCFA).
Under pure comparative fault, a plaintiff can recover damages as long as their own negligence is less than 100%, with their recovery reduced by their percentage of fault. If you suffered $500,000 in damages from a truck wreck but a jury finds you 20% at fault, your award would be reduced to $400,000. This contrasts with modified comparative negligence systems, where a plaintiff whose fault reaches 50% or 51% is barred entirely. Missouri’s approach is more favorable to injured victims. You can review a 50-state comparison of negligence laws to see how Missouri’s system compares.
Pure Comparative Fault in Products Liability Claims
Missouri also codified pure comparative fault for products liability claims under RSMo §537.765. Under RSMo §537.765(2), any fault chargeable to the plaintiff diminishes compensatory damages proportionately but does not bar recovery. This is relevant in truck accident cases involving defective truck parts, faulty brakes, or tire blowouts, where a products liability claim may run alongside a negligence claim.
💡 Pro Tip: If your truck crash involved a mechanical failure or defective component, you may have both a negligence claim against the driver or trucking company and a products liability claim against a manufacturer. Preserving physical evidence from the crash scene is critical.
How Fault Is Allocated Among Multiple Parties in Truck Accident Lawyers in St. Louis Cases
Truck accidents frequently involve multiple potentially liable parties, including the truck driver, the trucking company, a maintenance provider, or a parts manufacturer. Missouri’s fault allocation statute, RSMo §537.067, governs how liability is divided among defendants.
Joint and Several Liability Thresholds
Under RSMo §537.067(1), a defendant found to bear 51% or more of fault is jointly and severally liable for the full judgment amount. This means the plaintiff can collect the entire compensatory damages award from that defendant alone. A defendant bearing less than 51% of fault is only severally liable for their proportionate share. This distinction matters significantly in trucking cases, where a large carrier may have deep pockets but other at-fault parties may not.
The Employer Exception
An important exception exists under RSMo §537.067(1) for employer-employee relationships. A party can be held responsible for another defendant’s fault if that defendant was acting as the party’s employee. In trucking cases, this means a trucking company may be held liable for damages caused by its driver, even if the company’s own direct fault percentage is lower.
💡 Pro Tip: Trucking companies sometimes classify drivers as independent contractors to limit liability. Gathering evidence of the company’s control over the driver’s routes, schedules, and equipment can help establish an employment relationship that strengthens your claim.
What the Defendant Must Prove and What the Jury Cannot Know
In Missouri, comparative fault is an affirmative defense, meaning the defendant carries the burden of proving the plaintiff’s fault. In general negligence claims, this principle derives from the UCFA framework adopted in Gustafson v. Benda. In products liability claims, RSMo §537.765(2) expressly provides that the defendant may plead and prove the fault of the plaintiff as an affirmative defense. The Missouri Supreme Court reinforced this requirement in Lester v. Sayles, 850 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. banc 1993).
There is also an important procedural safeguard that benefits plaintiffs. Under RSMo §537.067(3), no party may disclose to the trier of fact the impact of the fault allocation statute during trial. The jury assigns fault percentages without knowing how those percentages will affect the final dollar amounts or joint-and-several liability.
💡 Pro Tip: Insurance adjusters may try to pressure you into accepting a low settlement by exaggerating your share of fault. Documenting the crash thoroughly with photos, witness statements, police reports, and ECM (black box) data can help counter these tactics.
How Missouri Defines "Fault" in Products Liability Truck Cases
When a truck crash involves a defective product, RSMo §537.765 defines "fault" using six specific categories. These include failure to use the product as reasonably anticipated by the manufacturer; use of the product for a purpose not intended by the manufacturer; use of the product with knowledge of a danger involved in such use with voluntary and unreasonable exposure to that danger; unreasonable failure to appreciate the danger; and failure to undertake precautions a reasonably careful user would take. This is a narrower definition than general negligence fault, limiting what types of plaintiff conduct can reduce a damages award in a products liability context.
This matters in cases where a trucking company claims a driver misused a component or ignored a known defect. The defense must tie the plaintiff’s conduct to one of those six enumerated categories. A St. Louis truck crash attorney can evaluate whether the defense’s fault arguments fit within the statutory framework.
Assumption of Risk in Comparative Fault Analysis
Missouri courts distinguish between primary and secondary assumption of risk. Primary assumption of risk may still serve as a complete defense in limited circumstances. However, secondary implied assumption of risk, where a plaintiff acts unreasonably in the face of a known danger, is treated as a form of comparative fault to be weighed against the defendant’s conduct.
| Type of Assumption of Risk | Effect Under Missouri Law |
|---|---|
| Express assumption of risk | May serve as a complete defense if a valid agreement exists |
| Implied primary assumption of risk | May still bar recovery entirely in limited contexts |
| Implied secondary assumption of risk (unreasonable conduct) | Treated as comparative fault; reduces but does not bar recovery |
💡 Pro Tip: If a trucking company argues you "assumed the risk" of driving near a large truck, this is generally not a valid defense. Missouri courts treat most unreasonable-conduct arguments as comparative fault issues, not complete bars.
Punitive Damages and Fault Allocation in Missouri Truck Wreck Cases
In addition to compensatory damages, truck accident victims in Missouri may seek punitive damages when the defendant’s conduct was particularly egregious. Under RSMo §537.067(2), punitive damages are only severally apportioned. Each defendant pays only their percentage of punitive damages.
This rule can affect strategy in cases involving multiple defendants. If a trucking company engaged in willful safety violations such as falsifying hours-of-service logs or ignoring maintenance requirements, your legal team may focus on establishing that company’s high percentage of fault to maximize punitive damages. Explore our truck accident resources for more information.
Protecting Your Right to Full Compensation After a St. Louis Truck Crash
Because Missouri’s comparative fault system reduces your recovery based on your assigned fault percentage, every piece of evidence matters. Trucking companies and their insurers often begin building a defense within hours of a crash, sending rapid-response teams to the scene and downloading ECM data. Taking early action to preserve evidence, including dashcam footage, electronic logging device records, and maintenance files, can be the difference between full compensation and a drastically reduced award.
Recorded statements given to an opposing insurer can be used to argue you were at fault. Before speaking with any insurance representative beyond your own carrier, consider consulting with a Missouri truck accident law firm. Visit our St. Louis truck accident blog for additional guidance.
💡 Pro Tip: Missouri law requires defendants to raise your fault as an affirmative defense. You are not required to disprove your own innocence. Focus on documenting the other party’s negligence.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Can I still recover compensation if I was partially at fault for a truck accident in Missouri?
Yes, Missouri’s pure comparative fault system allows recovery even if you share fault.
Your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault but are not eliminated unless you are 100% responsible. If you are found 30% at fault, your award is reduced by 30%, but you still recover 70% of your total damages.
2. Who decides what percentage of fault each party bears?
The jury or trier of fact assigns fault percentages.
During trial, the jury evaluates the evidence and assigns a fault percentage to each party. Under RSMo §537.067(3), the jury is not told how their fault allocation will affect dollar amounts or joint-and-several liability.
3. What happens if the trucking company is found more than 50% at fault?
A defendant with 51% or more fault faces joint and several liability.
Under RSMo §537.067(1), a defendant bearing 51% or more of fault can be held liable for the full compensatory damages judgment. This is particularly significant when the trucking company has greater financial resources than other defendants.
4. Does comparative fault apply the same way to defective truck part claims?
Products liability claims follow a specific statute with a narrower definition of fault.
RSMo §537.765 governs comparative fault in products liability claims and limits plaintiff "fault" to six enumerated categories. If your truck crash involved a defective component, the legal analysis may differ from a standard negligence claim.
5. How can a trucking company argue I was at fault?
The defendant must raise your fault as an affirmative defense and prove it.
Common tactics include arguing the plaintiff was speeding, distracted, or failed to take evasive action. Strong evidence preservation, including police reports, witness testimony, and electronic data from the truck, can help counter these arguments effectively.
Taking the Next Step to Protect Your Truck Accident Claim
Missouri’s pure comparative fault system offers important protections for truck crash victims, but navigating fault allocation, evidence preservation, and insurer tactics requires careful legal strategy. Every percentage point of fault directly affects the compensation you receive.
If you or a loved one suffered injuries in a truck collision in the St. Louis area, Halvorsen Klote Davis is ready to help you understand your options. Call (314) 451-1314 or contact us today to get started.
