February 13, 2024 | Car Accidents, Compensation, Personal Injury
In the United States, each state is able to set its own rules regarding laws and regulations.
Car accidents are one of the most common personal injury cases and how you are awarded compensation and the rules regarding negligence and the damages an individual is able to recover – or at least try to recover – you are at the mercy of the state’s laws.
While other personal injury matters can also be subject to these negligence laws, we will focus on how they function in the aftermath of a car accident in this article.
Every state enforces one of the following four negligence laws:
The concept of comparative negligence serves as an essential framework for resolving disputes where multiple parties are involved. At its core, comparative negligence evaluates and apportions fault among all parties implicated in an accident. In states practicing the pure comparative negligence rule, you can still recover damages even if you were partially responsible for the incident. However, your compensation corresponds directly to the degree of fault assigned—for instance, if you were found to be 20% at fault, you could recover 80% of your damages.
This system acknowledges that liability isn’t always black and white. Often, accidents result from a confluence of actions. By assigning a proportional level of responsibility to each involved party, the pure comparative negligence model aims to provide a fair method to determine compensation. It also encourages all parties to exercise a degree of personal responsibility, knowing that any negligent behavior can impact their financial recovery.
To grasp the distinction between comparative negligence and pure negligence, it’s vital to first comprehend what each theory entails. Pure negligence denotes an outdated or more traditional approach where, if you as a plaintiff are found even slightly at fault for your injuries, you could be barred from any recovery. It follows an all-or-nothing rule that makes it difficult for plaintiffs to obtain compensation if they had any role in causing their harm.
Conversely, comparative negligence, especially the pure form as used in Missouri, offers flexibility by assigning a percentage of blame to each party involved in an incident. With this system, your damages award is adjusted according to your level of fault. Let’s say your total damages amount to $100,000, but you’re deemed 20% at fault. Under pure comparative negligence, you’d still be eligible to recover $80,000, which emphasizes fairness and allows individuals to secure compensation even when partially responsible.
Contributory and comparative negligence are distinct approaches within negligence law, and these differences are crucial to understand, especially if you’re dealing with a personal injury claim. Contributory negligence is quite stringent. Under this doctrine, if you were found to be even slightly at fault for the incident, you would be barred from receiving any compensation for your injuries.
In contrast, comparative negligence offers a more balanced approach. It recognizes that multiple parties can share fault for an accident. Missouri adheres to the pure comparative negligence system, which means you can recover damages even if you’re predominantly at fault. Your compensation is simply adjusted according to your level of responsibility for the injury.
The key takeaway is that with contributory negligence, your compensation is all or nothing. If the accident is partly your fault, you receive nothing. However, with comparative negligence, you might still walk away with some financial recovery, albeit reduced by your percentage of fault. This flexibility can significantly impact the outcome of injury claims and is a critical factor in legal strategies for accident cases.
Missouri is a comparative fault state.
In Missouri, if you have been injured because of another person’s negligent or intentional behavior, you may be able to recover damages from the other person.
In Missouri, negligence laws have undergone significant transformations to accommodate a fairer system for injury settlements. Originally, the state followed a contributory negligence doctrine, in which any fault on the part of an injured person would completely bar them from recovering damages. However, recognizing the potential for injustice, Missouri transitioned to a more balanced approach known as comparative negligence.
Missouri’s journey towards adopting a pure comparative negligence system marked a pivotal point. This adaptation allows individuals to seek compensation even if they are mostly at fault. Unlike some states that limit compensation if the plaintiff’s fault equals or exceeds a certain percentage, Missouri’s laws ensure you can recover damages proportionate to the other party’s fault.
This system is particularly empowering for claimants, offering a mechanism that meticulously assesses the roles both parties played in an accident. Whether you’re involved in a car accident or a slip-and-fall incident, Missouri’s pure comparative negligence laws enable you to pursue claims and seek fair compensation based on the precise extent of your negligence.
In order to recover compensation for your injuries under the doctrine of negligence, you must prove that someone else was at fault in causing your injury and that this person was responsible for your injury.
If you are successful in doing this, then the court will assign a percentage of responsibility for your injuries to each party.
Comparative fault is used to calculate the amount of damages that a plaintiff is entitled to after an injury.
It is important to note that comparative fault does not determine whether or not you are liable for your injuries; rather, it determines how much you will be compensated for those injuries.
The doctrine of negligence is based on the idea that people should take care of their own safety and welfare.
If someone else’s negligent or intentional behavior causes you injury, then there may be grounds for a lawsuit against the other person.
A court will use a percentage system called “comparative fault,” which divides a plaintiff’s total loss by the total fault.
In instances where there are multiple defendants who are all found to be liable for an injury, they would each be assigned a percentage of responsibility for an injury and these percentages would be totaled together.
A simple way of understanding how Comparative Negligence is which this example:
Person A runs a red light and collides with Person B.
Person B has $10,000 in damages.
The court determines Person A is 100% responsible for the accident, therefor Person A must pay Person B $10,000.
An alternative scenario might be
Person A runs a red light and collides with Person B.
Person B has $10,000 in damages.
The court determines that while Person A did run a red light, Person B had sufficient enough time to try and avoid colliding with Person A.
Because of this Person A is ruled to be 80% responsible and is Person B 20% responsible, therefor Person A must pay $8,000 to Person B.
If you are involved in an accident in Missouri, contact a personal injury law firm to learn more about your legal rights and options.
Many people do not understand the laws that protect them when they’re injured by another person’s negligence. If you’ve been injured, you should know what you’re entitled to.
The doctrine of “comparative fault” is used in Missouri courts to allocate damages among parties who have been found negligent and caused the injury.
If you or a loved one has been injured in an automobile accident, we highly recommend you speak with a St. Louis car accident attorney to review your case.
Fill out the form below to schedule a free consultation with Craig
