Contributory fault as complete bar to plaintiff's recovery abolished
In Missouri product liability cases, a person who is partly at fault for their own injury can still get money from the manufacturer or seller. The old rule that blocked someone from getting anything if they were partly to blame no longer applies. Instead, if the injured person did something wrong, the money they receive is reduced by their share of the blame. The defendant can raise the injured person's fault as a defense to lower the payout, but not to eliminate it entirely.
537.765. as complete to 's recovery abolished — doctrine of to apply — of plaintiff an to diminish — fault defined. — 1. Contributory fault, as a complete bar to plaintiff's recovery in a , is abolished. The doctrine of pure comparative fault shall apply to products liability claims as provided in this section.
2. may and prove the fault of the plaintiff as an affirmative defense. Any fault to the plaintiff shall diminish the amount awarded as but shall not bar recovery.
3. For purposes of this section, "fault" is limited to:
(1) The failure to use the product as reasonably anticipated by the ;
(2) Use of the product for a purpose not intended by the manufacturer;
(3) Use of the product with knowledge of a danger involved in such use with reasonable appreciation of the consequences and the voluntary and unreasonable exposure to said danger;
(4) Unreasonable failure to appreciate the danger involved in use of the product or the consequences thereof and the unreasonable exposure to said danger;
(5) The failure to undertake the precautions a reasonably careful user of the product would take to protect himself against dangers which he would reasonably appreciate under the same or similar circumstances; or
(6) The failure to .
Tap any gold-underlined word to see what it means.
Source & history notes
(L. 1987 H.B. 700 § 36) Effective 7-01-87 (1993) Where skier suffered head injury while using an experts-only ski that was unreasonably dangerous for skier of plaintiff's ability, skier did not assume risk by using dangerous ski because defendant failed to warn against added danger and unpredictability caused by ski design. Hopfinger v. Kidder International, Inc., 827 F.Supp. 1444 (W.D. Mo.).
Related Missouri laws
State of the art, defined
RSMo 537.764
Motion to dismiss, defendant whose only liability is as seller in stream of commerce requirements, procedure
RSMo 537.762
Products liability claim defined
RSMo 537.760
Maximum amount payable from fund
RSMo 537.756
Fund money not available for certain purposes, exception
RSMo 537.755
Exhaustion of fund, claims to be prorated
RSMo 537.750
Legal information, not legal advice. Always confirm with the official source at revisor.mo.gov.