# Minnesota car accident law: duties, fault, no-fault insurance and leading decisions

This document is general legal information about what Minnesota law requires of drivers after a collision, how fault is decided in a civil claim, how the no-fault insurance system works, and the leading court decisions that apply them. It is not legal advice, and it does not cover every situation.

## Sources and currency

- Minn. Stat. § 169.09 (collisions: duty to stop, give information and report), § 169.96 (effect of traffic law violations in civil cases), §§ 169.685 and 169.686 (seat belts), §§ 604.01 and 604.02 (comparative fault and joint liability), § 541.05 (six-year limitation), and the no-fault act: §§ 65B.44 (basic economic loss benefits), 65B.46 (right to benefits), 65B.47 (priority of security), 65B.49 (uninsured and underinsured coverage), 65B.51 (tort threshold and deduction of benefits) and 65B.61 (benefits primary).
- Minn. Stat. §§ 609.2112 to 609.2114 (criminal vehicular homicide and operation), which are covered in more detail in the reckless driving document.
- Text taken from the 2025 Minnesota Statutes, as published by the Office of the Revisor of Statutes at https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/ and read on 2026-09-20. Laws passed in the 2026 legislative session may not be reflected.
- Court decisions: Minnesota Supreme Court and Court of Appeals opinions, read in the Harvard Caselaw Access Project (https://case.law/). Every passage placed in quotation marks in the case sections below was checked against the opinion text. The summaries of holdings are my own reading and are short. The no-fault act has been amended many times since the older decisions, including in 1985, so older opinions may describe rules that no longer apply. Each case section says when that matters.
- Where a sentence below is my reading of how sections fit together, and not a quotation, it says so.

## What a driver must do after a collision (§ 169.09)

- **Stop and investigate** (subds. 1, 2 and 4): "The driver of any motor vehicle involved in a collision shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the collision, or as close to the scene as possible, and reasonably investigate what was struck." The stop "must be made without unnecessarily obstructing traffic."
- **Remain at the scene** (subd. 1): if the driver "knows or has reason to know the collision resulted in injury to or death of another, the driver in every event shall remain at the scene of the collision until the driver has fulfilled the requirements of this section as to the giving of information." Subd. 2 says the same where the collision involves damage to a vehicle driven or attended by another.
- **Give information and help** (subd. 3(a)): the driver "shall give the driver's name, date of birth, mailing address or email address, and the registration plate number of the vehicle being driven", must exhibit a license on request to a peace officer, and "shall render reasonable assistance to any individual injured in the collision."
- **Insurance details** (subd. 3(b)): if not given at the scene, "within 72 hours after the accident" the driver must give, on request, "the name and address of the insurer providing vehicle liability insurance coverage, and the local insurance agent for the insurer."
- **Unattended vehicle** (subd. 4): the driver must locate and notify the driver or owner, report the information to a peace officer, or leave "in a conspicuous place in or secured to the vehicle struck, a written notice giving the name and address of the driver and of the registered owner".
- **Notice of injury** (subd. 6): after complying with the section, the driver of a vehicle in a collision resulting in bodily injury or death "shall ... by the quickest means of communication, give notice of the collision to the local police department if the collision occurs within a municipality, to a State Patrol officer if the collision occurs on a trunk highway, or to the office of the sheriff of the county."
- **Which accidents are reported** (subd. 8(b)): accidents on public rights-of-way must be reported if they result in a fatality; bodily injury to a person who immediately receives medical treatment; a vehicle so damaged it must be towed; or damage to fixtures, infrastructure or other property alongside or on a highway.
- **Agent of the owner** (subd. 5a): when a vehicle is operated by someone other than the owner, with the owner's consent, "the operator thereof shall in case of accident, be deemed the agent of the owner of such motor vehicle in the operation thereof."
- **Accident reports are not evidence** (subd. 13(b)): "Accident reports and data contained in the reports are not discoverable under any provision of law or rule of court. A report must not be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal, or any action for damages or criminal proceedings arising out of an accident." Subd. 13(c) says this does not prevent a person from testifying "as to facts within the individual's knowledge."

### Penalties for leaving the scene (§ 169.09, subd. 14)

- If the driver violates subd. 1 or 6 and did not cause the collision, and it results in the death of another, the driver is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to "not more than three years, or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both".
- If it results in great bodily harm: a felony with "not more than two years, or ... a fine of not more than $4,000, or both".
- If it results in substantial bodily harm: "not more than 364 days, or ... a fine of not more than $3,000, or both".
- If the collision results in bodily harm to another and the driver violates subd. 1 or 6, the driver "may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days, or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both" (subd. 14(b)).
- A violation of subd. 3, 5, 8, 11 or 12 is a misdemeanor. A driver who violates subd. 2 after damage to an attended vehicle, or subd. 4 after damage to an unattended vehicle, is guilty of a misdemeanor (subd. 14(c) to (e)).
- A driver who causes the collision and leaves the scene can be charged under the criminal vehicular statutes: § 609.2112, subd. 1(a)(7), covers "where the driver who causes the collision leaves the scene of the collision in violation of section 169.09, subdivision 1 or 6", with a maximum of ten years or a $20,000 fine, or both. See the reckless driving document.

## Criminal vehicular crimes after a crash

When a crash kills or injures someone, a driver can also be charged under §§ 609.2112 to 609.2114 if the driving was grossly negligent, or negligent while impaired, or the driver was over the alcohol limit or left the scene. The maximum sentence is up to ten years for a death, five years for great bodily harm, three years for substantial bodily harm and 364 days for bodily harm. These are covered in the reckless driving document, which also explains gross negligence.

## Fault in a civil claim

### Violating a traffic law is evidence, not automatic negligence (§ 169.96)

Section 169.96(b): "In all civil actions, a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, by either or any of the parties to such action or actions shall not be negligence per se but shall be prima facie evidence of negligence only." My reading: running a red light or speeding does not by itself decide a civil case, but it is evidence of negligence that the jury can weigh, and the other side can show an excuse.

### Comparative fault (§ 604.01)

Subd. 1: "Contributory fault does not bar recovery in an action by any person or the person's legal representative to recover damages for fault resulting in death, in injury to person or property, or in economic loss, if the contributory fault was not greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the person recovering."

My reading: an injured person can recover if the person's own fault is equal to or less than the fault of the person being sued, and the recovery is reduced by the injured person's percentage. If the injured person is more at fault than the defendant, the person recovers nothing from that defendant. Subd. 1a defines "fault" to include "acts or omissions that are in any measure negligent or reckless toward the person or property of the actor or others", and adds that "The doctrine of last clear chance is abolished."

### Who pays when several people share fault (§ 604.02)

Subd. 1: "When two or more persons are severally liable, contributions to awards shall be in proportion to the percentage of fault attributable to each, except that the following persons are jointly and severally liable for the whole award": a person "whose fault is greater than 50 percent", persons acting in a common scheme, a person who commits an intentional tort, and certain environmental liabilities. My reading: a driver who is more than 50 percent at fault can be made to pay the whole award, and others pay only their share.

### Time limit (§ 541.05)

Subd. 1 gives six years for several kinds of actions, including "any other injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter enumerated", for "taking, detaining, or injuring personal property", and for "a liability created by statute". My reading: a claim for personal injury or vehicle damage from ordinary negligence generally falls within this six-year period, but other statutes set different periods for specific claims, such as death claims and claims against governments, and I did not research them.

### Seat belts (§§ 169.685 and 169.686)

Subd. 1(a) of § 169.686 requires a properly adjusted and fastened seat belt to be worn by the driver and passengers of a passenger vehicle. A person 15 or older who violates it is "subject to a fine of $25", and the Department of Public Safety "must not record a violation of this subdivision on a person's driving record" (subd. 1(b)).

In a civil injury case, § 169.685, subd. 4(a): "proof of the use or failure to use seat belts or a child passenger restraint system ... is not admissible in evidence in any litigation involving personal injuries or property damage resulting from the use or operation of any motor vehicle." Subd. 4(b) preserves claims about a defectively designed, manufactured, installed or operating seat belt.

## The no-fault system

### Basic economic loss benefits (§ 65B.44)

- **Right to benefits** (§ 65B.46, subd. 1): "If the accident causing injury occurs in this state, every person suffering loss from injury arising out of maintenance or use of a motor vehicle or as a result of being struck as a pedestrian by a motorcycle has a right to basic economic loss benefits."
- **Minimum amounts** (§ 65B.44, subd. 1(a)): "a minimum of $40,000 for loss arising out of the injury of any one person, consisting of": "$20,000 for medical expense loss" and "a total of $20,000 for income loss, replacement services loss, funeral expense loss, survivor's economic loss, and survivor's replacement services loss".
- **Medical expenses** (subd. 2): reimburse "all reasonable expenses for necessary" medical, surgical, x-ray, optical, dental, chiropractic and rehabilitative services, prescription drugs, ambulance and other transportation to receive covered care, and hospital, extended care and nursing services.
- **Income loss** (subd. 3(a)): "compensation for 85 percent of the injured person's loss of present and future gross income from inability to work proximately caused by the nonfatal injury subject to a maximum of $500 per week."
- **Funeral and burial** (subd. 4): "reasonable expenses not in excess of $5,000".
- **Replacement services** (subd. 5): reimburse the reasonable expenses of "usual and necessary substitute services" the injured person would have performed for the household.
- **Primary** (§ 65B.61, subd. 1): "Basic economic loss benefits shall be primary with respect to benefits, except for those paid or payable under a workers' compensation law, which any person receives or is entitled to receive from any other source as a result of injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle."

### Whose insurance pays (§ 65B.47, subd. 4)

For cases other than business use, the priorities are:

- (a) for injury to an insured, "the security under which the injured person is an insured";
- (b) for injury to the driver or other occupant of an involved motor vehicle who is not an insured, "the security covering that vehicle"; and
- (c) for a person not otherwise covered who is not the driver or other occupant of an involved motor vehicle (for example a pedestrian), "the security covering any involved motor vehicle".

Under subd. 1, if the vehicle is being used in the business of transporting persons or property, the security is that covering the vehicle or, if none, the security under which the injured person is an insured.

### Suing the at-fault driver: the tort threshold and the offset (§ 65B.51)

Subd. 1: the court "shall deduct from any recovery the value of basic or optional economic loss benefits paid or payable". Subd. 3 limits recovery for pain and other noneconomic harm: "no person shall recover damages for noneconomic detriment unless" either:

(a) medical expenses, including "reasonable medical expense benefits paid, payable or payable but for any applicable deductible" and certain other listed amounts, exceed $4,000, excluding diagnostic x-rays and rehabilitation; or

(b) the injury results in "permanent disfigurement", "permanent injury", "death", or "disability for 60 days or more".

"Disability" means "the inability to engage in substantially all of the injured person's usual and customary daily activities." Subd. 2 allows a negligence action for economic loss that is not covered by first-party benefits, for example above the daily or weekly limits or because of an exclusion. Subd. 4 says the section does not limit the liability of a person in the business of manufacturing, distributing, retailing, repairing or servicing motor vehicles for a defect.

### Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage (§ 65B.49, subd. 3a)

Auto policies must include "separate uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages", and "Each coverage, at a minimum, must provide limits of $25,000 because of injury to or the death of one person in any accident and $50,000 because of injury to or the death of two or more persons in any accident." Under subd. 3a(4), "No recovery shall be permitted under the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverages of this section for basic economic loss benefits paid or payable". Under subd. 4a, the underinsured motorist insurer's maximum liability "is the amount of damages sustained but not recovered from the insurance policy of the driver or owner of any underinsured at fault vehicle", and "in no event shall the underinsured motorist carrier have to pay more than the amount of its underinsured motorist limits."

## Leading cases on fault and the civil claim

**Pouliot v. Fitzsimmons, 582 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. 1998).** Sharon Fitzsimmons lost control of her vehicle in inclement weather on County Road 42 in Prior Lake and collided with Janice Pouliot's stopped vehicle on the opposite side of the road. The jury found Fitzsimmons was not negligent and the trial court denied a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but the court of appeals reversed, calling the evidence of negligence "so overwhelming that reasonable minds could not differ." The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court's order, saying the court of appeals "inappropriately substituted its judgment for that of both the jury and the trial court". It held "that the jury could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that the deteriorating weather and road conditions due to freezing rain excused or justified Fitzsimmons' violation of section 169.18, subd." (subdivisions 1 and 2 of § 169.18, the rules on keeping to the right and passing to the right of oncoming traffic). Holding: a traffic law violation is not conclusive negligence, and a jury may find it excused by conditions such as freezing rain, consistent with § 169.96.

**Daly v. McFarland, 812 N.W.2d 113 (Minn. 2012).** Two snowmobilers collided. The jury found both negligent, found that Daly's negligence was not a direct cause of the accident, and yet allocated 30 percent of the fault to Daly. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that "the doctrine of primary assumption of risk does not apply to preclude Daly's claims that McFarland owed a duty of reasonable care in the operation of his snowmobile." It also found that the district court abused its discretion in how it reconciled the jury's directly contradictory answers: "We agree with McFarland that the district court abused its discretion in reconciling the directly contradictory jury verdict." Because a new trial "unfairly prejudices Daly, because the jury found that McFarland was, at a minimum, 70% responsible for the accident", the court ordered a remittitur, so that Daly could choose to accept 70 percent of the damages or a new trial. It is a snowmobile case, but it shows how comparative fault percentages are applied to a damages award.

**Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal, 453 N.W.2d 326 (Minn. 1990).** The plaintiffs were injured in a collision with an uninsured, intoxicated motorcyclist who had been served by the city's liquor store. The jury found the city 20 percent at fault and the motorcyclist 80 percent, and awarded over $2.2 million. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that "section 604.02, subdivision 1, does not violate equal protection guarantees" and affirmed in part and reversed in part. The version of § 604.02 involved in that case limited the joint liability of municipalities, and the statute has been amended since, so the current text above controls.

**Cressy v. Grassmann, 536 N.W.2d 39 (Minn. App. 1995).** Pamela Cressy and her son were injured when a bus struck her car from behind. The bus company's defense was that Cressy and her son were not wearing seat belts. The Court of Appeals upheld the law that bars that evidence, § 169.685, subd. 4: "Thus, we hold that the legislature did not, with the enactment of the mandatory seat belt and comparative fault statutes, implicitly repeal section 169.685, subdivision 4." It reasoned that "appellants' right to present a defense is not at risk. Although unable to reduce awards to the extent of damages that are attributable to seat-belt nonuse, appellants may still present evidence of respondents' comparative fault — if any — in causing the accident." Holding: not wearing a seat belt cannot be used to reduce a damages award in a civil injury case.

## Leading cases on no-fault insurance

**Haagenson v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co., 277 N.W.2d 648 (Minn. 1979).** Gerald Haagenson was seriously injured under unusual circumstances and claimed no-fault benefits under the policies on both his pickup truck and his automobile. A jury found the injuries covered under the pickup policy, and the trial judge stacked the coverage of both vehicles for a total of $60,000. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed that award. The jury had also awarded $50,000 for emotional distress and $300,000 as punitive damages for the insurer's nonpayment. The Court reversed those awards, holding that such damages "are not recoverable for bad-faith breach of contract", but remanded "for assessment of the 10-percent statutory penalty for delay in payment of no-fault benefits". Holding: an insurer's delay in paying no-fault benefits is met by the statutory penalty and not by punitive damages. The stacking result was later changed by the 1985 anti-stacking amendment, described in Meister below.

**Holman v. All Nation Insurance Co., 288 N.W.2d 244 (Minn. 1980).** After a serious one-vehicle accident, Lawrence Holman sued his insurer for optional coverages that he said had not been offered as required by § 65B.49, subd. 6. The district court found that underinsured motorist benefits had not been offered. The Supreme Court held: "We hold that the mandatorily-offered coverages, which are implied by law in the Holman policy, may be stacked, to the amount of Holman's damages." It also held that "the Lick rule is inapplicable for accidents occurring after the effective date of the No Fault Act", so that "Lawrence Holman is entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits in addition to bodily injury liability benefits to the extent of his damages." Holding: when an insurer fails to offer mandatory optional coverage, it is implied by law.

**Tlougan v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co., 310 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. 1981).** Carrie Tlougan, a five-year-old, was burned while playing with a book of matches left on the dashboard of a truck. The trial court found the injuries covered by the no-fault policy. The Supreme Court reversed: "Since we find the injuries did not arise out of the use or maintenance of a motor vehicle, we reverse." It explained that "coverage is not established since there is an insufficient causal connection between use of the vehicle for transportation purposes and the injury." Holding: no-fault benefits cover injuries that arise out of use of the vehicle for transportation, and not every injury that happens in or near a vehicle.

**Nemanic v. Gopher Heating & Sheet Metal, Inc., 337 N.W.2d 667 (Minn. 1983).** Lance Nemanic received a $65,000 jury verdict for injuries in a collision. He claimed his agoraphobia was triggered by the accident, and the trial court directed a verdict for him on the tort threshold of permanency and causation because the defense offered no adverse medical witness. The Supreme Court reversed, saying: "we hold that the trial court erred in not submitting the issue of permanence to the jury." It said there was evidence in the record "that plaintiff was recovering from his agoraphobia and that the condition was not permanent". Holding: even when the defense presents no expert, the jury decides whether the plaintiff meets the § 65B.51 tort threshold.

**Meister v. Western National Mutual Insurance, 479 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1992).** Michael Meister suffered severe head injuries when he was thrown from the back of his employer's pickup truck. The employer's insurer paid the basic economic loss benefits, and the question was whether Meister's own insurer, Western National, owed the additional optional benefits his father had bought, given the 1985 anti-stacking amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals. It said "this case does not pose a stacking issue", because the additional coverage "covers the persons under the policy; it does not follow the vehicle." It held that Meister could recover that additional coverage from his own insurer, "absent the business loss exclusion", and held the exclusion inapplicable because the legislature "mandated the availability of additional benefits without restriction". Holding: optional additional no-fault coverage a family buys for a person is not blocked by the anti-stacking amendment or by a business-use exclusion.

**Nelson v. American Family Insurance Group, 651 N.W.2d 499 (Minn. 2002).** Sharon Nelson received $20,000 in no-fault income loss benefits after a 1990 Minnesota accident. After a second accident she sued the tortfeasor in South Dakota, and the jury awarded $37,000 for past income loss, paid by American Family as the tortfeasor's insurer; after her one-third attorney fee she netted $24,666.67. She then sued American Family in Minnesota for further no-fault benefits. The district court and court of appeals held that any further recovery would be a double recovery. The Supreme Court reversed, saying that American Family's position "would impose on Nelson the cost of recovering in her tort action amounts that essentially represent the no-fault benefits covered by her American Family policy." It concluded: "To avoid these improper results, we conclude that Nelson is entitled to receive $6,666.67 from American Family", which "represents American Family's proportionate share of the attorney fees charged in the South Dakota action." Holding: the no-fault insurer must pay its proportionate share of the attorney fees when the injured person's tort recovery duplicates no-fault benefits.

## How this fits together (my summary)

- After any collision a driver must stop, investigate, give name and other information, and help injured people. Leaving after an injury crash can be a felony, and a driver who caused the crash and left can face criminal vehicular charges.
- A traffic law violation is evidence of negligence in a civil case and not automatic negligence, and a jury can find it excused (Pouliot, § 169.96).
- Fault is shared by percentage. An injured person can recover unless the person is more at fault than the defendant, and the recovery is reduced by the person's share (§ 604.01, Daly).
- Seat belt evidence cannot be used in a civil injury case to reduce damages (§ 169.685, subd. 4; Cressy).
- No-fault benefits pay medical and income loss regardless of fault, up to $20,000 medical and $20,000 for other losses as a minimum, with income loss at 85 percent up to $500 per week. To sue the at-fault driver for pain and suffering, the injured person must pass the tort threshold: more than $4,000 in medical expenses, or permanent injury, disfigurement, death, or 60 days of disability (§ 65B.51, Nemanic).
- The injury must arise from the use of the vehicle for transportation for no-fault benefits to apply (Tlougan).

## What this document does not cover

- Wrongful death claims, claims against governments and other special time limits and notice rules.
- Property damage claims and insurance claims handling rules beyond what is quoted above, and rules about total losses and rental cars.
- Optional coverages beyond the mandatory uninsured and underinsured coverage, and how stacking works today beyond the cases above.
- Workers' compensation and motorcycle, commercial and rideshare insurance rules.
- Criminal defenses to hit-and-run and criminal vehicular charges, beyond the cross references above.
- Court decisions not listed above. The list is a selection of leading decisions, not a complete one.