• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights News Headline Stack
Main image for NJ Supreme Court Continues to Allocate Fault to Non-Monetarily Liable Co-Defendants
Publications|Article

NJ Supreme Court Continues to Allocate Fault to Non-Monetarily Liable Co-Defendants

New Jersey Law Journal

6.14.2019

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.

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)).

The critical question, then, is whether the fault allocation mechanisms driven by the CNA and JTCL permit the apportionment of fault to a co-defendant who has been dismissed from the suit, for myriad reasons.

In Ramos v. Browning Ferris Industries of South Jersey—one of the earliest cases in which the New Jersey Supreme Court confronted this issue—the court concluded that if an injured worker elects benefits under New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. §34:15-1 to -127, a jury cannot later allocate fault to the absent employer in a negligence and/or strict liability suit.  103 N.J. 177, 193 (1986). In arriving at that conclusion, the court stressed the strict statutory language comprising the WCA and explained that when an employee accepts benefits under the WCA “the employee agrees to forsake a tort action against the employer.” Id. at 183 (citing Morris v. Hermann Forwarding Co., 18 N.J. 195, 197-98 (1955)). The WCA similarly “precludes a claim for contribution against an employer whose concurring negligence contributed to the injury of an employee.” Id. at 185. See also id. at 184 (“At the time the Legislature enacted the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law, as at present, the Workers’ Compensation Act provided that the agreement, express or implied, between employer and employee to accept the Workers’ Compensation Act ‘shall be a surrender by the parties thereto of their rights to any other method, form or amount of compensation or determination thereof than as provided in this article.’” (quoting N.J.S.A. § 34:15-8)). The court therefore determined that “the [WCA] removes the employer from operation of the [JTCL] … [b]ecause the employer cannot be a joint tortfeasor ….”  Id. at 184 (emphasis added). And, once the employer was dismissed from the suit on WCA grounds, the court found that it “was no longer a party to the suit, and the trial court correctly decided not to submit [the employer’s] negligence to the jury.” Id. at 193 (emphasis added).

more information

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Edward J. Fanning, Jr.
Edward J. Fanning, Jr.

Partner

Media item: David R. Kott
David R. Kott

Partner

Related Services

Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Appellate
Class Action & Multidistrict Litigation
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel