Missouri
Truck Accident Laws in Missouri (2026): Deadlines & Liability
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
A Missouri truck accident is governed by two layers of law: Missouri's own injury rules (the filing deadline and the state's fault rule) and the federal regulations that control how commercial carriers and drivers must operate. Missouri is a traditional at-fault (tort) state, not a no-fault state, so an injured person pursues the at-fault driver and the motor carrier directly. Because the other vehicle is a commercial truck, federal safety rules often supply the evidence of negligence.
This page explains the Missouri deadlines and liability rules that follow a crash with a semi, box truck, or other commercial vehicle, then the uniform federal rules that shape every interstate trucking case. It is general legal information, not legal advice.
What is the deadline to sue after a Missouri truck accident?
Missouri's general personal-injury statute of limitations is five years, set by RSMo 516.120, which covers an action "for any other injury to the person or rights of another" not otherwise specified. A truck-crash injury claim generally must be filed within five years of the date of the crash. That is one of the more generous deadlines in the country, but it is not a reason to wait.
Wrongful death is different. Under RSMo 537.100, a wrongful-death action arising from a fatal crash must be commenced within three years after the death. Because the deadlines differ, families pursuing both an injury and a death claim should track each one separately.
Even five years is a hard cutoff, and trucking evidence can be overwritten within weeks. The practical timeline for investigating a truck case usually runs much faster than the formal deadline. Long before the five years run out, have a Missouri truck accident lawyer start investigating with a free claim review while the truck's data still exists (attorney advertising).
Missouri's fault rule: pure comparative fault
Missouri follows pure comparative fault. The Missouri Supreme Court adopted the rule in Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983), directing courts to apply pure comparative fault in accordance with the Uniform Comparative Fault Act and abolishing the old all-or-nothing contributory-negligence bar.
Under pure comparative fault there is no percentage cutoff. A plaintiff found 30% at fault recovers 70% of the damages, and even a plaintiff found 99% at fault can still recover 1%. This is more favorable to injured plaintiffs than the modified-comparative rules used in most states, where being more than half at fault wipes out recovery entirely. In a truck case, where the carrier's own regulatory violations frequently shift fault toward the trucking side, pure comparative fault means an injured person is not shut out even if some blame is assigned to them.
No-fault status: Missouri is an at-fault state
Missouri is not a no-fault state. It uses the traditional tort (at-fault) system, which means there is no mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) and no statutory injury threshold to clear before filing suit. After a crash, the injured person makes a claim against the at-fault driver and the motor carrier, and ultimately their liability insurers, and may recover both economic and noneconomic damages by proving the other side's negligence. This removes the threshold hurdle that exists in no-fault states, but it places the full burden of proving fault on the injured party.
Damage caps in Missouri
Missouri does not cap ordinary compensatory damages in a standard truck-injury case. Economic damages (medical expenses, lost earnings, future care) and noneconomic damages (pain and suffering) in an ordinary negligence case are not subject to a statutory cap. A separate, narrower cap on noneconomic damages applies in medical-malpractice cases, which is a different category from a truck crash.
Punitive damages are different, and the limit on them is contested. RSMo 510.265 caps punitive damages at the greater of $500,000 or five times the net amount of the judgment awarded against that defendant. The statute carves out two situations of its own: the cap does not apply when the state of Missouri is the plaintiff requesting punitive damages, or when the defendant pleads guilty to or is convicted of a felony arising out of the same acts or omissions pleaded by the plaintiff.
The larger limit is constitutional. In Lewellen v. Franklin, 441 S.W.3d 136 (Mo. banc 2014), the Missouri Supreme Court held that the RSMo 510.265 cap is unconstitutional under article I, section 22(a) of the Missouri Constitution, because the right to a jury trial as it stood in 1820 included the right to have the jury, rather than the legislature, determine the amount of punitive damages. That reasoning ties the cap's force to whether the claim being tried is one that carried a jury-trial right in 1820, so whether the cap can constitutionally be applied to a particular truck-crash claim is a live question rather than a fixed ceiling. Because these rules are technical and still being litigated, they are worth raising with counsel early.
Minimum insurance in Missouri
Missouri requires every driver to carry at least 25/50/25 in liability coverage ($25,000 bodily injury per person, $50,000 per accident, $25,000 property damage), plus uninsured-motorist coverage of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident, according to the Missouri Department of Revenue. That is the floor for ordinary drivers. Commercial trucks are subject to far higher federal requirements, covered next.
Federal FMCSA rules that govern trucking
Interstate commercial trucking is regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These rules apply nationwide and frequently supply the proof of negligence in a truck case:
- Hours of service (49 CFR Part 395): A property-carrying driver may drive a maximum of 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty, may not drive beyond the 14th hour after coming on duty, must take a 30-minute break after 8 hours of driving, and may not drive after 60 hours on duty in 7 days or 70 hours in 8 days.
- Electronic logging devices (ELDs): Most drivers must record their hours with an ELD that automatically captures driving time, making falsified-logbook fatigue easier to prove.
- Driver qualification and CDL: Drivers must hold a valid commercial driver's license and meet medical and qualification standards under the driver-qualification rules.
- Drug and alcohol testing: Carriers must conduct pre-employment, random, post-accident, and reasonable-suspicion testing.
- Vehicle maintenance and inspection (49 CFR Part 396): Carriers must systematically inspect, repair, and maintain their vehicles and keep records.
A logbook showing too many hours behind the wheel, a skipped inspection, or a missed drug test can become central evidence that the driver or carrier was negligent.
Who can be held liable after a truck accident
A truck crash routinely produces several defendants, often corporate, which is a key difference from a typical car accident. Depending on the facts, the responsible parties can include the truck driver; the motor carrier (both vicariously for the driver's on-the-job conduct and directly for negligent hiring, training, supervision, or retention); a freight broker or shipper; the company that loaded or secured the cargo; and the manufacturer of a defective part such as a brake or tire.
Identifying every potential defendant matters because each may carry separate insurance, and because a carrier's own safety failures (pushing drivers past their hours, ignoring maintenance) can be independent grounds for liability beyond the driver's mistake.
Federal minimum insurance for trucks
Under 49 CFR 387.9, an interstate for-hire motor carrier hauling general (nonhazardous) freight in a vehicle of 10,001 pounds or more must maintain at least $750,000 in public-liability coverage. Carriers hauling certain hazardous materials must carry far more, up to $5,000,000. These federal minimums dwarf typical car-insurance limits and are one reason serious truck claims are valued differently from ordinary car-crash claims.
Preserving evidence after a truck crash
Trucking evidence is perishable. A truck's engine control module (its onboard "black box") can record speed, braking, and throttle data; the driver's ELD and logbooks record hours; and the carrier's maintenance and inspection records can show neglect. Much of this data can be overwritten or lawfully discarded on a routine retention schedule within weeks. A prompt written preservation (spoliation) letter to the carrier, asking it to retain the ECM data, ELD records, dispatch records, and maintenance files, helps keep that evidence intact.
Also preserve the basics on your side: the police crash report, photographs of the vehicles and scene, the names of witnesses, and complete medical records documenting your injuries.
How to evaluate a Missouri truck-accident claim
Most personal-injury attorneys handle truck cases on a contingency-fee basis (the fee is a percentage of any recovery) and offer a free initial consultation, so an early conversation usually costs nothing. No lawyer can promise a particular outcome or dollar amount; the value of any claim depends on the facts, the injuries, the available insurance, and the fault analysis.
The practical priorities after a Missouri truck crash are to get medical care and document your injuries, report the crash and obtain the police report, identify the insurers involved, preserve evidence quickly, and keep the filing deadlines firmly in view.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the deadline to sue for a truck accident in Missouri?
Generally five years for a personal-injury claim under RSMo 516.120, measured from the date of the crash. A wrongful-death claim arising from a fatal truck crash has a shorter three-year deadline under RSMo 537.100. Filing after the applicable deadline almost always bars the claim, so it is important to act well before it runs.
Does Missouri's no-fault law require me to clear a threshold before suing?
No. Missouri is an at-fault (tort) state, not a no-fault state. There is no mandatory PIP and no statutory injury threshold to step outside. You pursue the at-fault driver and motor carrier directly and recover by proving their negligence, but you carry the full burden of proving fault.
How does Missouri's pure comparative-fault rule affect my recovery?
Under the rule adopted in Gustafson v. Benda, your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, but you are never completely barred from recovering. If you are 40% at fault you recover 60% of your damages; even a plaintiff 99% at fault may recover 1%. This is more plaintiff-friendly than the modified-comparative rules in most states.
Who can be sued after a truck accident?
Often several parties. Liability can fall on the truck driver, the motor carrier (both for the driver's conduct and for negligent hiring, training, or supervision), a freight broker or shipper, a cargo loader, or the maker of a defective part. Truck cases routinely involve multiple, often corporate, defendants, each of which may carry separate insurance.
How is a truck accident different from a car accident?
Truck cases add a layer of federal regulation and usually more defendants. Interstate carriers must follow FMCSA rules on hours of service, electronic logging, driver qualification, drug testing, and maintenance, and their violations become liability evidence. Interstate general-freight carriers must carry at least $750,000 in liability coverage under 49 CFR 387.9, far above a normal car policy, and time-sensitive evidence like the truck's black box and the driver's logs must be preserved quickly.
How much is a Missouri truck-accident case worth?
There is no formula and no guaranteed figure. The value of any claim depends on the severity and permanence of the injuries, the economic losses, the strength of the fault evidence, and the insurance available. Missouri does not cap ordinary compensatory damages, and the high federal insurance minimums for trucks can affect what is recoverable. A lawyer can evaluate a specific case, but no one can promise an outcome.
Updates
Corrected the punitive damages section to state the statutory carve-outs in RSMo 510.265 accurately and to name Lewellen v. Franklin (Mo. banc 2014), which held the cap unconstitutional under the Missouri Constitution’s jury-trial guarantee.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XIX (MOTOR VEHICLES, WATERCRAFT AND AVIATION), Chapter 304
§ 304.012Motorists to exercise highest degree of care — violation, penalty.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
1. Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the highest degree of care. 2. No person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of this state shall perform stunt driving, as such term is defined in section 304.145. 3. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, unless an accident is involved then it shall be a class A misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Also relied on in: Is Lane Splitting Legal in Missouri? (2026 Law), Missouri Reckless, Careless and Imprudent Driving Laws (RSMo 304.012)
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXV (CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS), Chapter 516
§ 516.120What actions within five years.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
Within five years: (1) All actions upon contracts, obligations or liabilities, express or implied, except those mentioned in section 516.110, and except upon judgments or decrees of a court of record, and except where a different time is herein limited; (2) An action upon a liability created by a statute other than a penalty or forfeiture; (3) An action for trespass on real estate; (4) An action for taking, detaining or injuring any goods or chattels, including actions for the recovery of specific personal property, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract and not herein otherwise enumerated; (5) An action for relief on the ground of fraud, the cause of action in such case to be deemed not to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party, at any time within ten years, of the facts constituting the fraud.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 500 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Davis v. Laclede Gas Co. (Supreme Court of Missouri 1980, 603 S.W.2d 554)“…Count II are barred by the five-year statute of limitation. § 516.120, RSMo 1969. An appeal was taken to the East…”
- H.R.B. v. J.L.G. (Missouri Court of Appeals 1995, 913 S.W.2d 92)“…iff attempts to avoid the five year statute of limitations [RSMo § 516.120(4)] 2 by arguing that his psychologica…”
- Martin v. Crowley, Wade & Milstead, Inc. (Supreme Court of Missouri 1985, 702 S.W.2d 57)“…ed that an action such as the subject case is controlled by § 516.120, RSMo. 1978 which imposes a five year limit o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Missouri Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Missouri Car Accident Laws: Fault, Insurance, and Your Claim
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVI (STATUTORY ACTIONS AND TORTS), Chapter 537
§ 537.100Limitation of action — effect of absence of defendant and nonsuit.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
1. Every action instituted under section 537.080 shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action shall accrue; provided, that if any defendant, whether a resident or nonresident of the state at the time any such cause of action accrues, shall then or thereafter be absent or depart from the state, so that personal service cannot be had upon such defendant in the state in any such action heretofore or hereafter accruing, the time during which such defendant is so absent from the state shall not be deemed or taken as any part of the time limited for the commencement of such action against him; and provided, that if any such action shall have been commenced within the time prescribed in this section, and the plaintiff therein take or suffer a nonsuit, or after a verdict for him the judgment be arrested, or after a judgment for him the same be reversed on appeal or error, such plaintiff may commence a new action from time to time within one year after such nonsuit suffered or such judgment arrested or reversed; and in determining whether such new action has been begun within the period so limited, the time during which such nonresident or absent defendant is so absent…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 81 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State Ex Rel. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Maine v. Clark (1976) applied section 537.100 to a wrongful death suit and held a workers' compensation claim did not toll the period or trigger its savings clause. Gaines v. Monsanto Co. (1983) applied the amended three-year period to a claim not yet barred when the amendment took effect.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City, (Consolidated with)Wanda Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City (Supreme Court of Missouri 2014)✓After two earlier suits were dismissed, the family refiled wrongful death claims in October 2012 over a patient who died in March 2008; the court applied section 537.100's three year limit, held the claims time barred, and affirmed the dismissal.
- Gaines v. Monsanto Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals 1983, 655 S.W.2d 568)✓Parents of a secretary murdered by a coworker sued Monsanto in March 1982, nearly three years after her April 1979 death; the court applied the amended three year period of section 537.100 because the claim was not barred when the amendment took effect, so the suit was timely.
- State Ex Rel. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Maine v. Clark (Supreme Court of Missouri 1976, 536 S.W.2d 142)✓A worker's widow and children sued more than a year after his 1970 death, arguing an unsuccessful Kansas workers' compensation claim tolled the deadline; the court held section 537.100's nonsuit savings clause did not reach that claim and made prohibition absolute.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Medical Malpractice Laws in Missouri (2026): Deadlines & Caps, Motorcycle Accident Laws in Missouri (2026): Helmets, Missouri Slip and Fall Laws: Proving Premises Liability in the Show-Me State
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXV (CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS), Chapter 510
§ 510.265Limitations on punitive damages in certain cases.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
1. No award of punitive damages against any defendant shall exceed the greater of: (1) Five hundred thousand dollars; or (2) Five times the net amount of the judgment awarded to the plaintiff against the defendant. 2. The provisions of this section and sections 510.261 and 510.263 shall not apply to civil actions brought under section 213.111 that allege a violation of section 213.040, 213.045, 213.050, or 213.070, to the extent that the alleged violation of section 213.070 relates to or involves a violation of section 213.040, 213.045, or 213.050, or subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of section 213.070 as it relates to housing.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hervey v. Missouri Department of Corrections (Supreme Court of Missouri 2012, 379 S.W.3d 156)“…interpreting the phrase “net amount of the judgment” under section 510.265, RSMo 2000, it argues the cases it cites shou…”
- Estate of Overbey v. Chad Franklin National Auto Sales North, LLC (Supreme Court of Missouri 2012, 361 S.W.3d 364)“…ts on recovery regardless of the evidence, statutes such as section 510.265, RSMo, unavoidably limit the constitutional r…”
- Jason D. Dodson and Jason D. Dodson, Jr., a Minor, and Eva Raine Dodson-Lohse, a Minor, and August William Davis Dodson, a Minor, said Minors appearing by the duly appointed Next Friend Jason D. Dodson, Respondent/Cross-Appellant v. Robert P. Ferrara, M.D., and Mercy Clinic Heart and Vascular, LLC, Appellants/Cross-Respondents. (Supreme Court of Missouri 2016, 491 S.W.3d 542)“…plaintiff did not challenge the application of the caps in section 510.265, RSMo Supp. 2013, to the punitive damages aw…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Defamation Laws: Libel & Slander (2026), Missouri Punitive Damages Laws: Cap, Proof and State Lien (2026), Missouri Trade Secret Laws: UTSA, Remedies & Deadlines
Code of Federal Regulations Title 49
§ 387.9Financial responsibility, minimum levels.In forcecited in 55 of our articles
The minimum levels of financial responsibility referred to in § 387.7 are hereby prescribed as follows: Table 1 to § 387.9—Schedule of Limits—Public Liability Type of carriage Commodity transported January 1, 1985 (1) For-hire (In interstate or foreign commerce, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) Property (nonhazardous) $750,000 (2) For-hire and Private (In interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) Hazardous substances, as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, transported in bulk in cargo tanks, portable tanks, or hopper-type vehicles; in bulk Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 materials; in bulk Division 2.3, Hazard Zone A material; in bulk Division 6.1, Packing Group I, Hazard Zone A material, in bulk Division 2.1 or 2.2 material; or highway route controlled quantities of a Class 7 material, as defined in 49 CFR 173.403 5,000,000 (3) For-hire and Private (In interstate or foreign commerce, in any quantity; or in intrastate commerce, in bulk only; with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,001 or more pounds) Oil listed in 49 CFR 172.101; hazardous waste, hazardous materials, or hazardous substances defined in 49…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov
Cited in 45 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Carolina Casualty Insurance v. Yeates (2009) held an MCS-90 endorsement applies only where the underlying policy gives no coverage and the carrier's insurance falls below the minimums 49 CFR 387.9 prescribes. GREAT WEST CAS. v. General Cas. Co. of Wisconsin (2010) found that purpose met once other coverage exceeded the 387.9 amount.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- GREAT WEST CAS. v. General Cas. Co. of Wisconsin (District Court, D. Minnesota 2010, 734 F. Supp. 2d 718)“…ardous commodities is $750,000. 49 U.S.C. § 31139 (b)(2); 49 C.F.R. § 387.9 . Under the Federal Motor Carrie…”
- Carolina Casualty Insurance v. Yeates (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2009, 584 F.3d 868)✓A trucker's own insurer paid the Yeateses the full $750,000 that section 387.9 sets as the minimum for non-hazardous property, and the en banc court held a second insurer's MCS-90 endorsement was therefore never triggered and added no coverage.
- American Inter-Fidelity Exchange v. American Re-Insurance Company (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1994, 17 F.3d 1018)✓A truck insurer sought reinsurance for $846,256 in deductibles it paid accident victims but could not collect; the court read the mandatory endorsement to require insurers to cover victims from the first dollar up to section 387.9's minimums, and reversed the dismissal.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Truck Accident Laws by State (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Truck Accident Laws in Alabama (2026): Deadlines & Liability, Truck Accident Laws in Alaska (2026): Deadlines & Liability
Sources and References
- RSMo 516.120 - What actions within five years (general personal-injury limitations, 5 years)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 537.100 - Wrongful death action; limitation (3 years)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) - Missouri adopts pure comparative fault under the Uniform Comparative Fault Act(courtlistener.com).gov
- RSMo 510.265 - Limitations on punitive damages(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Missouri Department of Revenue - Insurance (minimum 25/50/25 liability + uninsured motorist)(dor.mo.gov).gov
- 49 CFR Part 395 - Hours of Service of Drivers(ecfr.gov).gov
- 49 CFR 387.9 - Financial responsibility, minimum levels ($750,000 general freight)(ecfr.gov).gov
- FMCSA - Summary of Hours of Service Regulations(fmcsa.dot.gov).gov
- FMCSA - Minimum Levels of Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers (49 CFR Part 387)(fmcsa.dot.gov).gov
- Lewellen v. Franklin, 441 S.W.3d 136 (Mo. banc 2014) - RSMo 510.265 punitive damages cap unconstitutional under Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 22(a)(courtlistener.com)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.