## Facts

- Thomas Blazovic and companions spent an evening at the Plantation Restaurant and Lounge in Fairfield, New Jersey; a separate group of patrons (including Andrich and others) was also present.
- After the group left the bar, Blazovic exited about fifteen minutes later and encountered them in the parking lot.
- Blazovic asserted the group was throwing rocks at a sign; when he asked them to stop, they allegedly rushed him, knocked him down, and repeatedly punched and kicked him.
- The group claimed Blazovic initiated the verbal confrontation; both sides agreed someone in the group began the physical fight.
- Blazovic sustained serious injuries; his wife asserted a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.
- Blazovic sued the individual assailants for intentional torts (assault and battery) and sued the bar/owner for negligence (inadequate security and lighting and negligent alcohol service).
- Some intentional-tort defendants settled before or during trial; the case proceeded with a mix of a non-settling intentional tortfeasor and negligent commercial defendants.
- The jury found an intentional assault and battery by members of the group, found negligence by the commercial defendants, and assigned a percentage of fault to Blazovic.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey’s Comparative Negligence Act requires the factfinder to apportion fault among all potentially responsible actors, including a negligent plaintiff, negligent defendants, and intentional tortfeasors.
2. Whether settling intentional tortfeasors must be included on the verdict sheet for fault allocation so that non-settling defendants pay only their proportionate share.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the Comparative Negligence Act applies and requires apportionment of fault among the plaintiff, negligent defendants, and intentional tortfeasors, including those who settled.
- The Court rejected a categorical rule excluding intentional tortfeasors from comparative-fault allocation.
- The Court reversed the contrary approach taken below and remanded for allocation of fault among all parties and for molding of the verdict consistent with that allocation.

## Legal Principles

- Under New Jersey’s Comparative Negligence Act, the trier of fact must allocate percentages of fault among all parties responsible for the injury, even when liability theories differ (negligence and intentional tort).
- Differences in the quality of wrongdoing are addressed through comparative percentages of fault, not by excluding intentional conduct from allocation.
- Settling defendants remain part of the comparative-fault calculus; their fault must be determined so that non-settling defendants are liable only for their assigned share.
- A plaintiff’s own negligence is included in the same allocation and reduces (and may, under New Jersey’s comparative-negligence threshold rules, bar) recovery.

## Conclusion

The court required a single comparative-fault allocation that includes negligent plaintiffs, negligent defendants, and intentional tortfeasors (including settling defendants), and remanded for the verdict to be restructured so each party’s payment responsibility reflects its percentage of fault.


Blazovic v. Andrich, 124 N.J. 90, 590 A.2d 222 (N.J. 1991)