NJ Supreme Court Continues to Allocate Fault to Non-Monetarily Liable Co-Defendants
This article briefly outlines the seminal opinions issued by the NJ Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, which have increasingly permitted co-defendants to be included on the jury verdict sheet under the Comparative Negligence Act and the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law.
June 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM
10 minute read
Over the past few decades, New Jersey appellate jurisprudence has continually affirmed that trial courts should permit the allocation of fault to co-defendants in negligence and strict liability actions, even if those co-defendants retain no monetary liability due to settlement, bankruptcy or statutory immunity. This article briefly outlines the seminal opinions issued by the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, which have increasingly permitted co-defendants to be included on the jury verdict sheet under the New Jersey Comparative Negligence Act (CNA) and the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law (JTCL).
The CNA, codified at N.J.S.A. §2A:15-5.1, et seq., mandates that the trier of fact determine two findings of fact in all negligence and strict liability actions: (1) the “full value of the injured party's damages,” N.J.S.A. §2A:15-5.2(a)(1); and (2) the percentage of each party's negligence, which, in sum, should add up to 100%, N.J.S.A. § 2A:15-5.2(a)(2). Once those percentages are properly determined, the trial judge “mold[s] the judgment from the findings of fact made by the trier of fact.” N.J.S.A. §2A:15-5.2(d). If, however, a defendant's fault is determined to be 60% or more, the plaintiff may recover the full amount of the awarded damages from that defendant. N.J.S.A. §2A:15-5.3(a). This is key, because if, for example, a settling defendant is ultimately determined to be more than 40% liable in a negligence action, the plaintiff could be severely disadvantaged regarding his or her recovery options. The JTCL complements the CNA by providing culpable defendants contribution rights against other parties if those defendants are ultimately liable for more than their allotted percentage share of a damages award. N.J.S.A. §2A:53A-3. “When applied together, the [CNA and JTCL] implement New Jersey's approach to fair apportionment of damages among plaintiffs and defendants, and among joint defendants.” Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76, 97 (2013) (quoting Erny v. Estate of Merola, 171 N.J. 86, 99 (2002)).
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 4Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
- 5Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
Who Got The Work
Charles A. Weiss of Holland & Knight has entered an appearance for Rafael Badalov in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed July 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Lee Law on behalf of Otter Products LLC, accuses the defendant of selling counterfeit phone cases and accessories bearing the plaintiff's 'OtterBox' trademark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nina R. Morrison, is 1:24-cv-05214, Otter Products, LLC v. Badalov et al.
Who Got The Work
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partners Benjamin Hershkowitz, Richard W. Mark and Casey J. McCracken and R. Scott Johnson, Thomas M. Patton and Cara S. Donels have entered appearances for Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. and MidAmerican Energy Co., respectively, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 17 in Iowa Southern District Court by Nyemaster Goode PC and Caldwell Cassady & Curry on behalf of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., asserts six patents related to sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Stephen H. Locher, is 4:24-cv-00243, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.
Who Got The Work
Michael J. Hickey and Michael L. Jente of Lewis Rice LLC have stepped in to represent Tidal Wave Management in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 18 in Missouri Western District Court by Husch Blackwell on behalf of Waterway Gas & Wash Co., accuses the defendant of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Clean Car Club' mark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., is 4:24-cv-00471, Waterway Gas & Wash Company v. Tidal Wave Management LLC.
Who Got The Work
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz partners Lauren M. Kofke and William Savitt have stepped in to represent CVS Health and and its top officials in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Chaya Sara Kaufmann, accuses the defendants of failing to disclose that they used misleading forecasts to set premium plans which overstated the profitability of the company's health care benefits segment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06595, Kaufmann v. Lynch et al.
Who Got The Work
Robert L. Wallan from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman has entered an appearance for Findlay Management Group in a pending complaint for declaratory judgment. The complaint, filed on Aug. 8 in Nevada District Court by Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Skarzynski Marick & Black on behalf of Houston Casualty Co., seeks to declare that no insurance policy exists between Houston Casualty and Findlay due to there not being an adequate form of delivery and claims that if delivery was substantiated it is rescinded based on material omissions and misrepresentations. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro, is 2:24-cv-01459, Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250