## Facts

- A fast-food restaurant operated by Country Burger of Ramsey, Inc. leased premises owned by Cartel Capital Corporation.
- The kitchen was protected by an automatic fire-extinguishing system manufactured by Ansul, Inc. and sold/installed/serviced by Fireco of New Jersey.
- A grease fire occurred; the system failed to discharge automatically and could not be activated manually, causing substantial property damage.
- Country Burger sued Ansul for negligence and strict products liability (design defect) and sued Fireco for negligence (installation/servicing) and strict liability based on the same design defect theory.
- Fireco and Ansul asserted cross-claims against each other for contribution and indemnification.
- Before trial, Ansul settled with Country Burger for $50,000, dismissed its own cross-claims, and obtained dismissal of Fireco’s cross-claims against it; trial proceeded against Fireco alone.
- The jury found Fireco negligent and the system defectively designed; both were proximate causes; it also found Country Burger negligent.
- The jury awarded $113,400 and allocated fault: Country Burger 41%, Fireco 30%, Ansul 29%.

## Issues

1. Whether comparative-fault principles and New Jersey’s Comparative Negligence Act apply to strict products-liability claims so that responsibility can be allocated among a negligent defendant, a strictly liable defendant, and the plaintiff.
2. How a settling joint tortfeasor’s settlement affects the liability of a non-settling tortfeasor, including the proper method of credit against the verdict.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court vacated the Appellate Division’s judgment and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with comparative-fault allocation.
- The Court held comparative-fault allocation applies in strict products-liability actions and permits a single allocation of responsibility among negligent and strictly liable parties.
- The Court held that when a joint tortfeasor settles, the non-settling defendant’s responsibility is the total verdict minus the settling defendant’s percentage share of fault (a percentage credit, not merely a dollar-for-dollar settlement credit).
- On remand, judgment against Fireco was to be calculated by applying the announced allocation and settlement rules, using the jury’s allocation between Fireco (30%) and Ansul (29%) as the basis for deducting Ansul’s share.

## Legal Principles

- Comparative-fault principles apply to strict products-liability claims, allowing allocation of responsibility among all responsible actors when the injury is indivisible.
- A settling joint tortfeasor’s settlement reduces the plaintiff’s recoverable amount from non-settling defendants by the settlor’s adjudicated percentage share of fault.
- Joint tortfeasors may be independently acting parties whose conduct contributes to a single, indivisible injury, supporting allocation and contribution concepts.
- A plaintiff may obtain judgments against multiple joint tortfeasors for the same harm but may receive only one satisfaction; an unsatisfied judgment against one does not bar actions against others.

## Conclusion

The court integrated strict products liability into New Jersey’s comparative-fault framework and required that a settlement by one joint tortfeasor be accounted for by subtracting the settlor’s percentage share of fault from the verdict, ensuring the non-settling defendant does not pay the settling party’s share and the plaintiff does not obtain a double recovery.


Cartel Cap. Corp. v. Fireco of N.J., 81 N.J. 548, 410 A.2d 674 (N.J. 1980)