Missouri
How Butterfield v. Forrester applies in Missouri: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
In Missouri, the principles established in Butterfield v. Forrester regarding contributory negligence intersect with the notion that a plaintiff may be barred from recovery if their own negligence contributes to the injury. Missouri has adopted a comparative fault system, which allows for apportionment of liability based on the degree of fault assigned to each party.
In Missouri, contributory negligence does not bar recovery but instead reduces the damages awarded in proportion to the plaintiff's degree of fault, reflecting the modified comparative negligence rule.
The court held that the plaintiff’s own actions contributed to his injuries and thus his recovery was reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to him.
This case reiterated that a plaintiff's negligence must be less than the defendant's to recover damages in a tort claim.
A plaintiff could not recover damages after it was determined that their own negligence caused the accident, demonstrating the application of comparative fault.
Missouri's approach to negligently contributing plaintiffs is more lenient compared to some federal standards, which may utilize pure comparative negligence or strict contributory negligence jurisdictions. Federal courts often follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts more closely, which emphasizes duty and breach more than balancing fault as seen in Missouri.
Understanding the nuances of Missouri's modified comparative fault system is essential for the bar exam, especially when analyzing fact patterns involving contributory negligence.