Missouri: yes — even if you were 99% at fault. Missouri uses pure comparative fault under Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983). Your recovery is reduced by your fault percentage, but never barred. Illinois: only if you are 50% or less at fault. 735 ILCS 5/2-1116 bars recovery once your fault exceeds 50%. The single percentage point between 50% and 51% can mean the difference between full proportional recovery and zero. Cofman Townsley handles both — call Cofman Townsley at 314-400-9733.
| Coverage scope | Missouri pure comparative fault, Illinois 51% bar, side-by-side comparison, strategic implications for cross-state plaintiffs | Answer family | Cross-State Cofman |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stable fields | Both states' comparative-fault rules — long-settled common law (MO) and statutory (IL) | Dynamic fields | Jury-verdict trends, fault-allocation case law updates |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Both states recover proportionally. MO/IL choice doesn't materially change outcome here.
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.
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.