/>iHighlights
Following a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, an individual who is not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey is not considered a “party” under the Comparative Negligence Act (CNA)
Non-parties who are outside the jurisdiction of New Jersey courts cannot have liability assigned to them by a jury under the CNA. As a result, they must be excluded from the jury’s fault allocation on the verdict sheet due to lack of jurisdiction
In New Jersey, a defendant may seek contribution under the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law or corresponding state statue in a court that has jurisdiction over the non-party
The Supreme Court of New Jersey rendered its decision in the case of Estate of Crystal Walcott Spill v. Markovitz on March 11, 2025. The decision affirms the Appellate Division’s decision to exclude a New York-based doctor from the verdict sheet due to lack of jurisdiction.
In reaching its decision, the court analyzed the Comparative Negligence Act (CNA) and Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law (JTCL), which generally cover contribution and allocation of fault. The court explained that “the CNA allows allocation of fault during a trial only to a ‘party’ or ‘parties,’ N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.2(a), whereas the JTCL allows ‘joint tortfeasors’ to seek contribution after a trial from other ‘persons’ alleged to be ‘liable in tort for the same injury,’ N.J.S.A. 2A:53A -1, -3.”
The court held that “a non-party alleged tortfeasor who is outside the jurisdictional arm of our courts, is not a ‘party’ subject to allocation by the jury pursuant to the CNA.” In other words, the jury cannot determine how much fault, if any, should be attributed to those non-party alleged tortfeasors. As such, the non-party may not be included on a jury verdict sheet.
The court explained that if a judgment is entered against the available defendants, those defendants may then pursue any contribution claim available in a jurisdiction that has personal jurisdiction over the non-party. The court took “no position on the merits of any such potential litigation.”
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the model civil jury instruction on causation “abates any unfairness that the lack of application of the CNA may impose on defendants. Rather, the court explained that the substantial factor test does not remove the “the need for allocation of fault to reduce a plaintiff’s recovery to the percentage of damages directly attributable to their own negligence, to the extent that the CNA permits such allocation.”
Takeaways
Under this interpretation, parties that are dismissed from a case for lack of personal jurisdiction cannot have liability assigned to them by a jury under the CNA. They could, however, be subject to subsequent actions seeking contribution by the defendants.
