Missouri: Pure vs. Modified Comparative Fault Rules

Missouri sits at the most claimant-friendly end of the national spectrum — and got there through the courts, not the General Assembly.

Three systems, and Missouri uses the most forgiving

American fault law generally splits into three real categories: pure comparative fault, modified comparative fault (with either a 50% or 51% fault-percentage bar), and pure contributory negligence. Missouri uses pure comparative fault — the most claimant-friendly of these three approaches.

No threshold, period

Under a modified comparative system, crossing a fixed fault percentage — 50% in some states, 51% in others — eliminates recovery entirely. Missouri's pure system contains no such cutoff at all. A claimant found 70% at fault, or even 90% at fault, still recovers a proportional share of their damages rather than nothing.

A genuinely unusual origin

Most states that use some form of comparative fault adopted it through legislation. Missouri's version is a real exception: the Missouri Supreme Court created the rule itself in Gustafson v. Benda (1983), adopting the Uniform Comparative Fault Act judicially and abolishing contributory negligence, last clear chance, and humanitarian negligence all at once — years before the legislature formally codified parts of the new system in 1987.

A genuine minority nationally

Roughly a dozen states, including Missouri, California, New York, and Mississippi, use some form of pure comparative fault, while more than 30 states use a modified version with a fault-percentage cutoff instead.

The stricter alternative: contributory negligence

At the far stricter end of the spectrum sit the contributory negligence jurisdictions — Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and DC — where any fault at all, even 1%, bars recovery entirely. Missouri's rule stands in genuine, direct contrast to this approach: there, fault simply doesn't close the door, no matter how large a share of it belongs to the claimant.

Where Missouri fits among its pure comparative peers

See our guide to the other pure comparative fault states for Missouri's closest peer group nationally, and how its rule compares to the other dozen or so states that share this same forgiving approach.

Pure vs. modified comparative fault — frequently asked questions

What are the three fault systems used across US states?

Pure comparative fault, modified comparative fault (with either a 50% or 51% bar), and pure contributory negligence. Missouri uses pure comparative fault.

How does Missouri's pure comparative fault differ from a modified system?

A modified system bars recovery entirely once a claimant's fault reaches a threshold, typically 50% or 51%. Missouri has no such threshold — recovery is always available, reduced proportionally, no matter how high the claimant's fault.

How many states use pure comparative fault like Missouri?

Roughly a dozen states, a genuine minority nationally, while more than 30 states use some form of modified comparative negligence instead.

Is Missouri's pure comparative fault rule unusual in how it was created?

Yes, genuinely. Most states adopted their fault rules by statute. Missouri's rule was created by the state Supreme Court itself in Gustafson v. Benda (1983), with the legislature only codifying parts of it years later.

How does Missouri's rule differ from contributory negligence states?

Contributory negligence states, like Maryland, bar recovery entirely for any fault at all, even 1%. Missouri allows recovery at any fault percentage, including 90% or more, reduced proportionally.

This page provides general guidance only and is not legal advice. Figures are based on Missouri case law (Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983)) and general US negligence law, verified per our methodology. Confirm how these rules apply to a specific claim with a licensed Missouri attorney before acting.