How to calculate pain and suffering damages in Missouri

Direct answer

In Missouri, pain and suffering damages are part of the overall “damages” the jury awards and then Missouri applies a comparative fault framework to determine what the plaintiff can recover. In this workflow, you use DocketMath’s damages-allocation tool by entering (1) the pain-and-suffering amount you’re modeling and (2) the fault percentages for the parties, so the tool can allocate recoverable totals under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.067 and the comparative-fault approach recognized in Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983).

What you need to know

Missouri’s approach is generally easiest to model as: (a) establish the jury’s damages figure(s), then (b) apply comparative fault to determine recoverable shares. That means you usually shouldn’t treat “pain and suffering” as a totally separate math problem—rather, treat it as one component of the damages you’re allocating.

Pain and suffering typically “moves” with the damages allocation step

Even if your damages worksheet breaks out “pain and suffering” as a distinct line item, the comparative-fault reduction is modeled at the allocation/recovery level rather than by using a standalone “pain-only” formula.

Fault percentages drive the output you care about

With pure comparative fault, the plaintiff’s recoverable share is tied to the allocation of fault. In practice, small changes in fault inputs can produce meaningful differences in allocated totals—so your inputs should match the scenario you’re evaluating.

The DocketMath approach: inputs → allocation → allocated totals

DocketMath’s damages-allocation tool is designed to:

1. Take your damages inputs (including pain and suffering, if you model it as a damages line),
2. Take your fault percentage inputs,
3. Produce allocated recoverable totals consistent with Missouri’s allocation workflow under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.067.

Step-by-step

Use DocketMath → damages-allocation to calculate an allocated pain-and-suffering outcome for Missouri.

Step 1: Open the allocation calculator

Start here: /tools/damages-allocation.

Step 2: Enter the pain-and-suffering damages amount

Add your pain-and-suffering total as the starting damages figure for the allocation model.

Quick checklist:

• Pain-and-suffering total entered as a single modeled amount
• Amount uses the same currency/units you’re using for any other damages components in your model

Step 3: Enter the comparative fault percentages

Provide the fault allocation for each relevant party.

Quick checklist:

• Plaintiff fault %
• Defendant fault(s) %
• Any additional party fault %

Step 4: Confirm the joint/several threshold behavior used by the tool

If your scenario includes joint/several allocation behavior within DocketMath’s Missouri workflow, the calculator includes a 51% threshold for that sub-rule behavior (allocation_types.joint-several.sub_rules.0.threshold_percentage: 51).

Quick check:

• Does your scenario involve multiple defendants or joint/several dynamics within the tool’s model?
• If yes, would your inputs trigger the relevant threshold path?

Step 5: Run the calculation

Submit the inputs to compute:

• The allocated plaintiff share tied to the pain-and-suffering input, and
• The other parties’ allocated shares (depending on how the tool presents results).

Step 6: Iterate with sensitivity inputs

Because comparative fault changes what the plaintiff recovers, it’s often helpful to run multiple scenarios.

Try at least:

• A lower plaintiff fault scenario
• A middle plaintiff fault scenario
• A higher plaintiff fault scenario

Then record how the allocated pain-and-suffering recovery moves across those runs.

Step 7: Capture your results cleanly for comparison

As you run scenarios, record:

• Your pain-and-suffering starting amount
• The plaintiff fault % used
• The allocated plaintiff pain-and-suffering recovery produced by DocketMath

This makes it easier to compare runs and explain your valuation range later.

Key statutes and citations

This workflow is anchored to Missouri’s damages allocation statute:

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.067

• Primary citation: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.067
• Source link: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=537.067
• Subsection referenced in this guide: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.067.1

Gustafson v. Benda (comparative fault baseline)

• Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983)
• Role in this workflow: supports the comparative-fault framework used to translate fault percentages into recoverable shares.

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765 (products liability comparative-fault provision)

• Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765
• Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765.2
  Use this only if your scenario is within products liability context and you’re modeling under that provision.

Common pitfalls

1. Using mismatched fault inputs

• Symptom: You enter the pain-and-suffering number you want, but the fault percentages reflect a different scenario.
• Fix: Ensure the pain-and-suffering input and the fault percentages correspond to the same fact pattern and modeled posture.

1. Ignoring how the tool’s joint/several threshold can change paths

• Symptom: Outputs differ more than expected from a small change in fault.
• Fix: Check whether DocketMath’s 51% joint/several threshold behavior (allocation_types.joint-several.sub_rules.0.threshold_percentage: 51) could be switching the allocation logic path.

1. Double-reducing for comparative fault

• Symptom: You reduce the plaintiff amount manually for comparative fault and then also let DocketMath reduce again.
• Fix: Pick one place to apply the comparative-fault reduction—typically, enter the starting damages and let DocketMath apply the allocation.

1. Running only one scenario

• Symptom: Your analysis looks precise but doesn’t reflect how sensitive recoverable amounts are to fault assumptions.
• Fix: Run multiple fault scenarios (low/medium/high plaintiff fault) and compare allocated outcomes.

Run the numbers

Use DocketMath runs to build a small set of comparable results.

Scenario setup (what to model)

Create a simple set like:

Track these outputs from DocketMath

• Allocated plaintiff pain-and-suffering recovery (Scenario A)
• Allocated plaintiff pain-and-suffering recovery (Scenario B)
• Allocated plaintiff pain-and-suffering recovery (Scenario C)

What to expect as fault changes

In general, as plaintiff fault increases, the allocated plaintiff recovery you model under Missouri’s comparative-fault framework will tend to decrease. Validate this directionally by running the A/B/C scenarios.

Related reading

• How to calculate Damages Allocation in Philippines — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• Worked example: Damages Allocation in Philippines — Worked example with real statute citations
• Inputs you need for Damages Allocation in Philippines — Input checklist with sourcing guidance