Missouri's rule on being sued after a car accident turns on a feature the national template does not capture: Missouri follows pure comparative fault under § 537.765: an injured person may recover even if mostly at fault, with damages reduced by their percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% complete bar. The controlling authority is Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765. The personal-injury deadline is 5 years — Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4). Missouri is an at-fault liability state; injured parties pursue negligent drivers' bodily-injury coverage without a no-fault tort immunity system.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: pure comparative fault (recovery reduced by your share of fault, with no percentage bar).
- Controlling authority: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765.
- In Missouri, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff.
- Personal-injury filing deadline: 5 years — Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4).
- Insurance: Missouri is an at-fault liability state; injured parties pursue negligent drivers' bodily-injury coverage without a no-fault tort immunity system.
Worked example under Missouri law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for Missouri. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
Two drivers collide in Missouri. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In Missouri, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff..
- Apply what fault does to the claim: Missouri follows pure comparative fault under § 537.765: an injured person may recover even if mostly at fault, with damages reduced by their percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% complete bar.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: 5 years — Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4).
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Missouri is an at-fault liability state; injured parties pursue negligent drivers' bodily-injury coverage without a no-fault tort immunity system.
In Missouri the accident lawsuit turns on Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765 and the pure comparative rule, not on a national no-fault script.
Can you be sued after a car accident in Missouri?
Yes. A driver, passenger, pedestrian, or property owner injured in a crash can file a negligence (or related) claim against an allegedly at-fault driver — and against owners or employers in some agency/vicarious-liability settings. Being “mostly not at fault” does not stop a lawsuit from being filed; it shapes whether the plaintiff can win and how much they recover.
You can also be sued even when you believe the other driver is primarily responsible. Fault is usually a contested jury (or settlement) issue under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765.
Comparative fault and negligence in Missouri
Missouri follows pure comparative fault under § 537.765: an injured person may recover even if mostly at fault, with damages reduced by their percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% complete bar.
In Missouri, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff.
Practical consequences:
- Settlement leverage tracks predicted fault shares.
- Insurers often reserve rights or deny coverage based on comparative-fault findings.
- Multiple defendants (other drivers, employers, vehicle owners) can split fault among themselves under Missouri allocation rules.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
Missouri is an at-fault liability state; injured parties pursue negligent drivers' bodily-injury coverage without a no-fault tort immunity system.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Missouri uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.
Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)
5 years — Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4)
Missing the deadline usually ends the claim permanently. Tolling (minority, discovery rules, bankruptcy stays) can apply in narrow situations — do not assume extra time without counsel.
What to do after a crash in Missouri
- Get medical care and document injuries.
- Preserve photos, dash-cam, witness names, and the police report.
- Notify your insurer promptly; avoid recorded statements to the other driver’s insurer without advice.
- Calendar the SOL: 5 years — Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4).
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Missouri) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in Missouri
Thomas L. LIPPARD, Appellant, v. HOUDAILLE INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent
Thomas L. LIPPARD, Appellant, v. HOUDAILLE INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent, 1986 Mo. LEXIS 322 (1986)
…impression with us we are called upon to decide whether the comparative fault principles of Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) apply to strict products liability cases. After considering thorough briefs, excellent oral argument, cases from other jurisdictions, and scholarly writings, we conclude that comparative fault should not be applied in cases of this kind.…
Practitioners open Thomas L. LIPPARD, Appellant, v. HOUDAILLE INDUSTRIES, INC., Respondent when Missouri car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) apply to strict products liability cases." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Janice CORNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXACO, INC., and Joe Hood’s Service, Inc., Defendants-Respondents
…o each defendant, the jury may be instructed on plaintiff’s comparative fault after each of plaintiff’s verdict directing instructions. This Court determines that a trial court errs in such repetitive instruction and determines further that plaintiff was not prejudiced by such error in this case. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed. Appellant contends the trial court erred in givin…
On car-accident / fault, Janice CORNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TEXACO, INC., and Joe Hood’s Service, Inc., Defendants-Respondents speaks to the Missouri dispute in this passage: "This Court determines that a trial court errs in such repetitive instruction and determines further that plaintiff was not prejudiced by such error in this case. Judgment for plaintiff affirmed." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Cleo FINNINGER and Charles Finninger, Appellants, v. Jake M. JOHNSON, Respondent
…said instructions therefore erroneously placed the issue of comparative fault before the jury. There being no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a summary recital of the pertinent facts suffices. On April 9, 1977, Cleo Finninger (now appellant, plaintiff at trial) was operating her motor vehicle westbound on Chambers Road in St. Louis County. She stopped her vehicle…
On car-accident / fault, Cleo FINNINGER and Charles Finninger, Appellants, v. Jake M. JOHNSON, Respondent speaks to the Missouri dispute in this passage: "There being no challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, a summary recital of the pertinent facts suffices. On April 9, 1977, Cleo Finninger (now appellant, plaintiff at trial) was operating her motor vehicle westbound on Chambers Road in St. Louis County." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Ronda G. JENSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARA SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Respondent
…d 11 (Mo. banc 1983), § 537.060, RSMo 1986, nor the Uniform Comparative Fault Act explicitly answered the question presented. In selecting its particular formula, the court did not cite to any other authority for its decision. 710 S.W.2d at 266-77. Rather, the court based its holding on the fact that it believed the formula used by the trial court the formula advocated by the p…
Practitioners open Ronda G. JENSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARA SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Respondent when Missouri car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Mo. banc 1983), § 537.060, RSMo 1986, nor the Uniform Comparative Fault Act explicitly answered the question presented. In selecting its particular formula, the court did not cite to any other authority for its decision. 710 S.W.2d at 266-77." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Florence J. PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. Lyle H. LIVELY, D/B/A Lively Optical Service, Respondent
…ments may have had at some past point in the development of comparative fault law, they have little or no merit at the present time. The plaintiff herself cited Finninger v. Johnson, 692 S.W.2d 390 (Mo.App.1985), in support of the proposition that it is error to submit instructions on comparative negligence where there is no substantial evidence of comparative negligence in the…
Practitioners open Florence J. PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. Lyle H. LIVELY, D/B/A Lively Optical Service, Respondent when Missouri car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The plaintiff herself cited Finninger v. Johnson, 692 S.W.2d 390 (Mo.App." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get sued if the accident was not my fault?
Anyone can file a suit. Winning — and collecting — depends on proving negligence and overcoming Missouri’s pure comparative rules under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765.
What if I was partly at fault?
In Missouri, you can still recover even if you were mostly at fault — your damages are simply reduced by your percentage of fault. There is no 50% or 51% cutoff.
How long do I have to sue after a car accident in Missouri?
5 years — Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4)
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
Missouri is an at-fault liability state; injured parties pursue negligent drivers' bodily-injury coverage without a no-fault tort immunity system. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.