Blazovic v. Andrich
18 A.L.R. 5th 1031, 124 N.J. 90, 590 A.2d 222 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The New Jersey Comparative Negligence Act requires a trier of fact to apportion fault among all parties, including a plaintiff, a negligent co-defendant, and intentional tortfeasors, viewing intentional conduct as a degree of fault comparable to negligence.
Facts:
- On August 19, 1982, Thomas Blazovic, his companion Mildred Courtis, and a group of friends gathered at the Plantation Restaurant and Lounge in Fairfield.
- Defendants James Andrich, James Philbin, Dean Angelo, Vincent LaBanca, and Louis Zecchino were also at the Plantation that night.
- Both groups left the Plantation at different times, with the group of defendants leaving approximately fifteen minutes before Blazovic and his friends.
- While in the Plantation’s parking lot, Blazovic observed the group of defendants throwing stones or rocks at a nearby sign.
- Blazovic politely asked them to stop, at which point the group of defendants ran toward him, pushed him to the ground, and proceeded to punch and kick him.
- A member of the group of defendants initiated the physical confrontation, causing Blazovic to sustain physical injuries and economic loss.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1984, Thomas Blazovic instituted a negligence action against Plantation Restaurant and Lounge and its owner James Corsi, Jr., as well as against individual defendants James Andrich, James Philbin, Dean Angelo, Vincent LaBanca, and Louis Zecchino.
- Prior to trial, Blazovic settled with defendant Louis Zecchino for $1,000.
- After jury selection but before opening statements, Blazovic settled with defendant Dean Angelo for $12,500, and with defendants James Andrich, James Philbin, and Vincent LaBanca for $2,750 each.
- During the course of the trial, Plantation’s owner, James Corsi, Jr., was dismissed as an individual defendant.
- The jury found Plantation negligent and a proximate cause of Blazovic’s injuries, found the individual defendants (Andrich, Philbin, LaBanca, and Angelo) committed an intentional assault and battery, and found Blazovic’s own negligence contributed to his injuries.
- The trial court, believing negligent conduct could not be compared with intentional conduct, instructed the jury to compare only the relative fault of Blazovic and Plantation, resulting in 70% causal negligence to Plantation and 30% to Blazovic, with $150,000 in compensatory damages awarded.
- The trial court molded the verdict by reducing the judgment by 30% for Blazovic’s fault, then divided the balance on a pro rata basis among Plantation and the four individual defendants, resulting in a $21,000 judgment against Plantation.
- Blazovic (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing the verdict molding was incorrect for failing to apportion fault to intentional tortfeasors and that Plantation should receive a credit based on the settling defendants' percentage of fault.
- The Appellate Division modified the trial court’s judgment, holding the jury verdict was incomplete and, due to waiver, apportioned fault itself: 50% to Plantation and 50% to the intentional tortfeasors as a group, calculating Plantation’s liability to be $52,500.
- A dissenting member of the Appellate Division agreed with reversing the pro rata apportionment but urged a limited exception to indemnity doctrine, proposing that plaintiffs should recover full consequences from a negligent proprietor, with indemnity against assailants.
- Blazovic appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court as of right, and Plantation filed a notice of cross-appeal and a petition for certification.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the New Jersey Comparative Negligence Act require the trier of fact to apportion fault between a plaintiff, a negligent co-defendant, and settling co-defendants whose alleged fault was based on intentional conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Stein, J.
Yes, the Comparative Negligence Act requires the trier of fact to apportion fault among all parties, including a plaintiff, a negligent co-defendant, and intentional tortfeasors. The Court's reasoning stems from the legislative intent behind the Act to ameliorate the harshness of common-law contributory negligence, shifting to an apportionment of liability in rough equivalence to causal fault. The Act's application is not limited to traditional negligence actions but extends to "fault in a broader sense," encompassing strict liability and wanton/willful conduct, as established in prior cases like Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Machine Co. and McCann v. Lester. The Court explicitly rejects the notion that intentional conduct is "different in kind" from negligence, instead characterizing it as "different in degree," meaning that the varying levels of culpability can be proportionally reflected in a jury's fault apportionment. This approach aligns with the guiding principle of comparative fault to distribute loss based on the respective faults of the parties. The Court also clarifies that apportioning fault for compensatory damages does not undermine the deterrent or punitive aspects of tort recovery, as punitive damages are not subject to apportionment. Furthermore, the Court affirms the Appellate Division's decision to initially treat the intentional tortfeasors as a single group for apportionment purposes to avoid disproportionate fault assignment solely based on their number. The Court rejects the Appellate Division dissent's concern about plaintiffs being disadvantaged by impecunious intentional tortfeasors, reaffirming the principle of proportional fault and distinguishing the present case from those where a defendant's duty specifically encompassed preventing the misconduct of another, concluding that Plantation's alleged negligence did not bear a sufficient causal relationship to the combined misconduct to justify imposing entire responsibility.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of New Jersey's Comparative Negligence Act, establishing that "fault" for purposes of apportionment includes intentional torts alongside negligence, strict liability, and wanton/willful conduct. By viewing intentional wrongdoing as "different in degree" rather than "different in kind," the Court solidifies the principle that liability should be distributed proportionally among all parties contributing to an injury, regardless of the specific tort theory. This decision provides clarity for juries in complex multi-party actions involving various forms of culpability and reinforces the legislative intent to move away from all-or-nothing recovery. Future cases in New Jersey must now include intentional tortfeasors in the fault allocation scheme, which could impact litigation strategy, settlement negotiations, and the ultimate recovery for plaintiffs, particularly concerning the interplay with joint and several liability rules.
