top of page

Contact Our Firm

Can I Still File a Personal Injury Claim if I am Partially Responsible for a Car Accident in Missouri?

Writer's picture: Roland SwansonRoland Swanson

Understanding Missouri’s law on comparative fault or negligence is important in determining whether you have a personal injury claim after being involved in a car accident that was partially your fault.

 

What is Comparative Fault/Negligence?

 

Comparative negligence is defined as a plaintiff’s own negligence that proportionally reduces the damages recoverable from a defendant. In essence, comparative negligence reduces the amount an individual is able to recover, in a civil action, based on the amount or percentage they are determined to be at fault.

 

To explain how comparative negligence works in real-life situations, imagine you are driving on a roadway where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour. However, instead of driving 25 miles per hour, you are actually driving 35. As you continue driving down the roadway, a car jumps out in front of you to execute a turn, even though it is unsafe to do so. You slam on brakes in order to avoid the collision, but you are unable to bring your car to a complete stop. As a result, you crash into the vehicle that negligently pulled out in front of you. You may be determined to share fault for the accident since an argument can be made that had you not been speeding, you would have been able to bring your car to a complete stop, and successfully avoid the collision. However, even if you are deemed to be partially responsibility for the car accident, it is unlikely you will be precluded from compensation because the car that jumped out in front of you also negligently contributed to the accident occurring. Comparative negligence will simply reduce the amount you are able to ultimately recover, based on the percentage you are determined to be at fault.

 

Understanding How Fault is Apportioned in Negligence Cases

 

States vary in approach as to how fault is apportioned in negligence cases. Essentially, there are three types of negligence: (1) pure comparative fault; (2) modified comparative negligence; and (3) contributory negligence.

 

1.     Pure Comparative Negligence

 

If a plaintiff or party bringing forth suit is found to be negligent, the defendant is only liable for the percentage the defendant is determined to be at fault. For example, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 for damages sustained as a result of a car accident but is determined to be 60% at fault for the accident, plaintiff will only receive $40,000 (the 40% for which defendant was at fault.) If, using the same award, plaintiff was held to be 75% liable, plaintiff will only receive $25,000 (the 25% for which defendant was at fault.) Pure comparative fault is the most liberal type of negligence, as no matter what percentage an individual is determined to be responsible for, the person is not barred from recovering damages (so long as the person is not 100% at fault.)

 

2.     Modified Comparative Negligence

 

Modified comparative negligence is not as liberal as pure comparative negligence but is also not as restrictive as contributory negligence. Under modified comparative negligence, a person is only allowed to recover damages or compensation if their apportionment or percentage of fault is below a certain established threshold. The threshold in some states is set at 50% while other states set their threshold at 51%. Currently, approximately 23 states follow the 51% threshold while approximately 10 states follow the 50% threshold.

 

The threshold rules are applied as follows:

 

· 50% Threshold Rule – A plaintiff or party who is found to be equally (50%) liable or at fault for their damages or injuries is barred from recovering compensation for their injuries. However, if the plaintiff or party is determined to be 49% (or any amount less than 49%) at fault, they can recover damages. Their ultimate award is simply reduced by the percentage of fault they are determined to be responsible for.

 

· 51% Threshold Rule – A plaintiff or party who is determined to be responsible for the majority percentage (51% or more) of fault for their injuries or damages is barred from recovering compensation for their injuries. A person can share up to 50% fault under the 51% threshold rule and still recover for their damages, but their award is still reduced by the percentage of fault they are determined to be responsible for.

 

3.     Contributory Negligence

 

If a plaintiff’s or party’s own negligence played a part in causing their own injuries or losses, contributory negligence bars that individual from recovering damages or compensation. Because an individual is prohibited from recovery, even if slightly at fault, contributory negligence is considered to be the most restrictive type of negligence. Currently, there are only five states and/or jurisdictions that follow or apportion fault under the contributory negligence theory. Those jurisdictions are: (1) Alabama; (2) District of Columbia; (3) Maryland; (4) North Carolina; and (5) Virginia.

 

Contributory negligence is the most restrictive type of negligence, as a plaintiff or party cannot be 1% responsible for their injuries or damages. That’s right! Even if you are just 1% responsible for a car accident, under the contributory negligence concept, you would automatically be disqualified from pursuing compensation from the other party.

 

Understanding Negligence

 

Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation.

 

The elements necessary to recover damages for negligence are:

 

1.     Duty – The defendant must have had a duty to protect the plaintiff from the harm plaintiff sustained an injury as a result of. Normally, the harm is required to be foreseeable or one that the defendant should have reasonably known of.

 

2.     Breach of Duty – Knowing the existence of a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, the defendant must have breached said duty. A breach of duty essentially means the defendant failed to act as a reasonable and prudent person would act under the same or similar circumstances.

 

3.     Causation – The defendant’s breach of duty must have caused the injuries ultimately sustained by the plaintiff. Under Missouri law, there are two recognized components for causation; cause in fact and proximate cause.

 

· Cause in fact encompasses the “but for” test, meaning but for the defendant’s negligence or conduct, plaintiff would not have been injured.

 

· Proximate cause includes a foreseeability aspect, in determining whether the harm or injury sustained by the plaintiff was or should have been foreseeable to the defendant, based on the defendant’s negligence or conduct.

 

4.     Damages – Lastly, a plaintiff must prove actual damages sustained as a result of the defendant’s breach of duty. In Missouri, damages can include economic damages (i.e., lost wages; medical bills; financial loss; etc.) or non-economic damages (i.e., pain and suffering; emotional harm; emotional distress; etc.)

 

Additionally, in Missouri, a plaintiff is allowed to seek both compensatory damages and punitive damages. Compensatory damages include an amount that seeks to reimburse the plaintiff for the amount lost. Punitive damages, on the other hand, are intended to punish and deter conduct. In order to recover punitive damages in Missouri, a plaintiff must show the defendant intentionally harmed the plaintiff without just cause or acted with deliberate and flagrant disregard for the safety of others.

 

Whether you were partially responsible for a car accident, or not responsible at all, the Swanson Law Firm has extensive experience representing individuals in personal injury claims resulting from car accidents. If you or a loved one have recently been injured as a result of a car accident, request a free initial consultation with our firm today.


6 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page