Why NJ Supreme Court OK'd Allotting Fault To Phantom Foes

By Patrick Perrone, Loly Tor and Alexandra Kozyra (May 7, 2018, 10:29 AM EDT) -- In Krzykalski v. Tindall,[1] the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether a jury can be asked to apportion fault between a named party defendant and a known but unidentified defendant — a "John Doe" — under New Jersey's Comparative Negligence Act.[2]. Pointing to the CNA and the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law,[3]  the court held that a jury can apportion fault to a John Doe defendant, thus permitting the apportionment of fault to an individual or entity from whom the plaintiff cannot recover damages and reducing the plaintiff's award of damages.

The plaintiff, Mark Krzykalski, sued the defendants David Tindall and John...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!


Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!