2019 Missouri Revised Statutes
Title XXXVI - Statutory Actions and Torts
Chapter 537 - Torts and Actions for Damages
Section 537.765 Contributory fault as complete bar to plaintiff's recovery abolished — doctrine of comparative fault to apply — fault of plaintiff an affirmative defense to diminish damages — fault defined.

Effective 01 Jul 1987, see footnote

537.765. Contributory fault as complete bar to plaintiff's recovery abolished — doctrine of comparative fault to apply — fault of plaintiff an affirmative defense to diminish damages — fault defined. — 1. Contributory fault, as a complete bar to plaintiff's recovery in a products liability claim, is abolished. The doctrine of pure comparative fault shall apply to products liability claims as provided in this section.

2. Defendant may plead and prove the fault of the plaintiff as an affirmative defense. Any fault chargeable to the plaintiff shall diminish proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages 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 manufacturer;

(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 mitigate damages.

­­--------

(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.).