Missouri / Illinois Comparative Fault

Comparative fault: pure (Missouri) vs. 51% bar (Illinois) | Cofman Townsley

Missouri and Illinois split sharply on shared fault: Missouri's pure comparative rule (§ 537.765) reduces recovery by your percentage with no cutoff, while Illinois (735 ILCS 5/2-1116) bars recovery entirely once you pass 50%. Where the crash happened decides which rule applies.

Last refreshed August 28, 2026

Coverage scopeMissouri pure comparative fault, Illinois 51% bar, side-by-side comparison, strategic implications for cross-state plaintiffsAnswer familyCross-State Cofman
Stable fieldsBoth states' comparative-fault rules — long-settled common law (MO) and statutory (IL)Dynamic fieldsJury-verdict trends, fault-allocation case law updates

1. Direct answer

Missouri — pure comparative fault. Every plaintiff can recover. Their damages are simply reduced by their fault percentage. A plaintiff 70% at fault still recovers 30% of damages. This is the plaintiff-friendliest rule in the country.

Illinois — modified comparative fault, 51% bar. A plaintiff recovers proportionally if 50% or less at fault. A plaintiff 51%+ at fault recovers nothing. The cliff is real and decides cases.

2. Side-by-side examples

3. Missouri — pure comparative fault (Gustafson v. Benda, 1983)

In Gustafson v. Benda, the Missouri Supreme Court abandoned the old contributory-negligence rule (which barred recovery for any plaintiff fault) and adopted pure comparative fault. Under pure comparative:

No cliff. No bar. The rule applies in all negligence cases including product liability, premises liability, and most personal injury.

Joint and several liability in Missouri

Missouri abolished joint and several liability for non-economic damages under R.S. 537.067 — each defendant pays only their own percentage of non-economic damages. For economic damages, defendants 50%+ at fault may be jointly liable. This is the inverse of Illinois's 25% threshold.

4. Illinois — modified comparative fault, 51% bar (735 ILCS 5/2-1116)

Illinois adopted comparative fault by case law in Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill.2d 1 (1981), then codified the 51% bar by statute. Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116(c):

The 51% bar means juries (and adjusters) fight hard over the line. A small change in the jury's fault perception can flip the outcome from 50% recovery to zero recovery.

Joint and several liability in Illinois

Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1117:

This affects collection strategy. Even if a plaintiff is 40% at fault and the at-fault driver has limited insurance, a co-defendant with 26% fault may be jointly liable for the full economic damages.

5. When the difference between MO and IL matters most

Plaintiff fault genuinely contested between 45-55%

The single most important place the rule matters. In MO, every percentage just changes the recovery amount. In IL, jurors fight over the 50/51 line. Settlement value shifts dramatically based on where the case is venued.

MO resident, IL accident, fault contested above 50% If IL substantive law applies (place of injury), the 51% bar can wipe out a case that would have recovered in MO. See choice of law page.

Plaintiff fault 0-20%

Both states recover proportionally. MO/IL choice doesn't materially change outcome here.

Plaintiff fault 60-80%

MO: significant proportional recovery still possible. IL: complete bar. Filing in MO is the only path to recovery — but jurisdiction over the defendant must support it.

6. The "empty chair" defense

In multi-defendant cases, a defendant can argue that a non-party (or settled-out party) bears most of the fault. Under both MO and IL law, the jury can allocate fault to non-parties — and that allocation reduces the plaintiff's recovery from the remaining defendants. This is the "empty chair" tactic.

7. Common Cofman scenarios

8. Related questions

Cross-state MO/IL choice of law Which state's fault rule applies depends on choice-of-law analysis.SOL: 5y MO vs. 2y IL Procedural SOL is independent of substantive fault law.Illinois multi-vehicle pile-up Pile-up fault allocation is where the 51% bar bites hardest.Madison and St. Clair County venue Venue selection within IL — does it affect fault allocation?

9. Source set

Talk to Cofman Townsley Injury Lawyers

Related questions

Can I recover in Missouri if the accident was mostly my fault?

Yes. Missouri's pure comparative fault (Gustafson v. Benda) reduces your damages by your fault percentage but never bars recovery - a plaintiff 70% at fault still recovers 30%.

What is Illinois' 51% bar?

Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116, a plaintiff 50% or less at fault recovers proportionally; a plaintiff 51% or more at fault recovers nothing. The single percentage point decides cases.

Why do adjusters fight so hard over fault percentages in Illinois?

Because the 51% bar is a cliff: moving a jury's perception from 50% to 51% flips the outcome from half recovery to zero. In Missouri there is no cliff - percentages only scale the number.

What is the 'empty chair' defense in a fault fight?

Defendants argue a non-party (or settled party) bears most of the fault. In Missouri that reduces but cannot defeat recovery; in Illinois a large non-party allocation can push you past the 51% line and end the claim.

Which state's fault rule applies to my crash?

Generally the law of the state where the crash happened — Missouri's no-cutoff pure comparative rule or Illinois' bar at more than 50% fault. Where you live doesn't control.