## Facts

- Heller Industrial Parks, Inc. owned and operated an industrial park in Edison, New Jersey with a long, straight internal roadway.
- For years, individuals used the roadway at night for informal drag racing that was recurrent, visible, and drew spectators.
- Evidence supported that Heller knew or should have known drag racing occurred on its property and failed to take reasonable measures to stop it (e.g., restricting access, installing speed bumps, increasing security).
- On July 12, 2012, eighteen-year-old Hussein M. Agiz rode a motorcycle in the park when a drag-racing car driven by Jonathan J. Bonilla struck him.
- Agiz suffered catastrophic injuries, including a brain contusion and traumatic amputation of his right arm and right leg.
- Agiz sued Heller and numerous other parties; many defendants settled or were dismissed, and Bonilla defaulted.
- After an eight-day jury trial, the jury found Bonilla 60% at fault and Heller 40% at fault and awarded $2,301,313 for pain and suffering and $4,355,515 for future medical expenses/care.
- The pain-and-suffering amount was not a round number, prompting concern that it reflected an impermissible “quotient verdict.”

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly granted a new trial on pain-and-suffering damages based on a suspected quotient verdict where the only objective indicator was an irregular damages figure and jurors affirmed the verdict when polled.
2. Whether a new trial, if warranted, could be limited to a discrete component of damages rather than retrial of liability or other damages.
3. Whether the evidence supported imposing premises-liability-based comparative fault on Heller for failing to address foreseeable drag racing activity on its property.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the jury’s liability determination, including the 40%/60% comparative fault allocation between Heller and Bonilla.
- The Appellate Division vacated the post-trial order granting a new trial limited to pain-and-suffering damages because the record did not adequately support the conclusion that the jury rendered a quotient verdict.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A commercial landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to foreseeable entrants, including reasonable measures to protect against foreseeable risks created by recurrent dangerous activity on the premises.
- Comparative fault may be imposed on a landowner when evidence supports that the landowner knew or should have known of ongoing dangerous conduct and failed to take reasonable steps to address it.
- A quotient verdict requires proof that jurors agreed in advance to be bound by an average of their individual figures; an uneven or non-round damages number, standing alone, is insufficient.
- A trial court’s new-trial order must be supported by a record showing that the verdict resulted in a manifest denial of justice or was otherwise improper under governing standards.
- A partial new trial may be ordered only when the retried issue is distinct and separable from issues that were fairly and reliably determined, so that limiting the retrial will not create injustice or inconsistent results.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s finding that a commercial landowner could bear comparative fault for failing to curb known, recurring drag racing on its property, but it vacated the trial court’s pain-and-suffering-only new-trial order because an irregular award amount and a standard jury poll did not sufficiently establish an impermissible quotient verdict.


Agiz v. Heller Indus. Parks, Inc., No. A-2025-16T4, 2018 WL 2089978 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 7, 2018)