contribution claim in New Jersey

2022With the creation of a statutory right of contribution non-existent in New Jersey at common law, the JTCL from its inception was "grounded in principles of fairness and equitable distribution of liability." Young, 53 N.J. at 255 (citing Sattelberger, 14 N.J. at 367–68); see also Rosenthal, 14 N.J. at 387 ("The inequality emanating from the payment [of a judgment] is the thing redressed."); Polidori, 217 N.J.

1974And see, Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Rosenthal, 14 N.J. 372, 389 (1954), dealing with a joint tortfeasor's defense in a contribution claim brought after entry of judgment, based on the then applicable interspousal immunity, plaintiff and defendant having married after the judgment was entered.

2022See Holloway, 125 N.J. at 402 ("How joint tortfeasors arrive at the litigation should not affect the substantive right of contribution." (citing Sattelberger, 14 N.J. at 369–72)).

2017“The Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law was enacted to promote the fair sharing of the burden of judgment by joint tortfeasors and to prevent a plaintiff from arbitrarily selecting his or her victim.” Holloway v. State, 125 N.J. 386, 400-01 , 593 A.2d 716 (1991) (citation omitted).

2022For example, accepting for the moment Bowers' contribution claim is limited in amount to the $600,000 settlement reduced to a consent judgment, and assuming a jury found both Bowers and Comiskey wer e equally at fault, then each presumably would be responsible for $300,000. 7 Although Young suggests Bowers, as the contribution claimant, was also required to prove, and Comiskey was entitled to contest, "the quantum of damages ensuing from the joint offense," 53 N.J. at 255 , we query what the Court envisioned would be Comiskey's contribution obligation if the jury determined Hoelz's damages wer

1987As the Supreme Court made clear in Young v. Steinberg, et al., 53 N.J. 252, 255 (1969), where contribution is in issue, an alleged joint tortfeasor against whom a contribution claim is made is entitled to "have his day *266 in court as to both liability and damages." See also Antenucci v. Mr. Nick's Mens Sportswear, 212 N.J.

2025A contribution claim by a joint tortfeasor is "common liability at the time of the accrual of plaintiff's cause of action which is the Sine qua non of defendant's contribution right." Cherry Hill Manor Assocs. v. Faugno, 182 N.J. 64, 72 (2004) (quoting Markey, 129 N.J.

2022With the creation of a statutory right of contribution non-existent in New Jersey at common law, the JTCL from its inception was "grounded in principles of fairness and equitable distribution of liability." Young, 53 N.J. at 255 (citing Sattelberger, 14 N.J. at 367–68); see also Rosenthal, 14 N.J. at 387 ("The inequality emanating from the payment [of a judgment] is the thing redressed."); Polidori, 217 N.J.

2022See Holloway, 125 N.J. at 402 ("How joint tortfeasors arrive at the litigation should not affect the substantive right of contribution." (citing Sattelberger, 14 N.J. at 369–72)).

2022With the creation of a statutory right of contribution non-existent in New Jersey at common law, the JTCL from its inception was "grounded in principles of fairness and equitable distribution of liability." Young, 53 N.J. at 255 (citing Sattelberger, 14 N.J. at 367–68); see also Rosenthal, 14 N.J. at 387 ("The inequality emanating from the payment [of a judgment] is the thing redressed."); Polidori, 217 N.J.

2003See also Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 171, 173 (1963) ("The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction"), discussed in Macon, supra, 57 N.J. at 339 , 273 A. 2d 1 ; and State v. Johnson, 46 N.J. 289, 291 , 216 A. 2d 392 (1966) (a pre- Macon decision, in which the Court said, with respect to an apparent non-constitutional error, "there must be an evaluation of its capacity for improper impact in the circumstances of a case").

2003See also Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 171, 173 (1963) ("The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction"), discussed in Macon, supra, 57 N.J. at 339 , 273 A. 2d 1 ; and State v. Johnson, 46 N.J. 289, 291 , 216 A. 2d 392 (1966) (a pre- Macon decision, in which the Court said, with respect to an apparent non-constitutional error, "there must be an evaluation of its capacity for improper impact in the circumstances of a case").

2003See also Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 171, 173 (1963) ("The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction"), discussed in Macon, supra, 57 N.J. at 339 , 273 A. 2d 1 ; and State v. Johnson, 46 N.J. 289, 291 , 216 A. 2d 392 (1966) (a pre- Macon decision, in which the Court said, with respect to an apparent non-constitutional error, "there must be an evaluation of its capacity for improper impact in the circumstances of a case").

2003See also Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85, 86-87 , 84 S.Ct. 229, 230 , 11 L.Ed. 2d 171, 173 (1963) ("The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction"), discussed in Macon, supra, 57 N.J. at 339 , 273 A. 2d 1 ; and State v. Johnson, 46 N.J. 289, 291 , 216 A. 2d 392 (1966) (a pre- Macon decision, in which the Court said, with respect to an apparent non-constitutional error, "there must be an evaluation of its capacity for improper impact in the circumstances of a case").

1997See generally Patterson v. Monmouth Reg’l High School Bd. of Educ., 222 N.J.Super. 448, 456 , 537 A.2d 696 (App.Div.1987), certif. denied, 110 N.J. 183 , 540 A.2d 180 (1988).

1997See generally Patterson v. Monmouth Reg’l High School Bd. of Educ., 222 N.J.Super. 448, 456 , 537 A.2d 696 (App.Div.1987), certif. denied, 110 N.J. 183 , 540 A.2d 180 (1988).

1997See generally Patterson v. Monmouth Reg’l High School Bd. of Educ., 222 N.J.Super. 448, 456 , 537 A.2d 696 (App.Div.1987), certif. denied, 110 N.J. 183 , 540 A.2d 180 (1988).

1997See generally Patterson v. Monmouth Reg’l High School Bd. of Educ., 222 N.J.Super. 448, 456 , 537 A.2d 696 (App.Div.1987), certif. denied, 110 N.J. 183 , 540 A.2d 180 (1988).

1991In the event of a settlement the equities provided for in the right to contribution are transferred to the “logical incident,” Judson, supra, 17 N.J. at 93, 110 A.2d 24 , of the contribution doctrine, namely, the credit.

1991In the event of a settlement the equities provided for in the right to contribution are transferred to the “logical incident,” Judson, supra, 17 N.J. at 93, 110 A.2d 24 , of the contribution doctrine, namely, the credit.

1987As the Supreme Court made clear in Young v. Steinberg, et al., 53 N.J. 252, 255 (1969), where contribution is in issue, an alleged joint tortfeasor against whom a contribution claim is made is entitled to "have his day *266 in court as to both liability and damages." See also Antenucci v. Mr. Nick's Mens Sportswear, 212 N.J.

1980Fault alone is not enough; there must be a joint liability to respond to the injured person in damages for the consequences of the default [citations omitted]. [ Zotta v. Otis Elevator Co., 64 N.J.