P and a small group of friends gathered at the Plantation Restaurant and Lounge. Andrich, James Philbin, Dean Angelo, Vincent LaBanca, and Louis Zecchino (Ds) were also at Plantation that night. Ds left, and approximately fifteen minutes later, P and his friends also left the bar. P contends that while in the parking lot, he observed a group of people, including D, throwing stones or rocks at a nearby sign. P asked them to stop, at which point the group ran toward him, pushed him to the ground, and proceeded to punch and kick him. Ds claim that on leaving the bar, they remained in the parking lot, throwing small stones to see who could come closest to a nearby sign. Andrich (D) testified that a short time later, P came out of Plantation and began swearing at Ds. Both sides agree that a member of that group of Ds began the physical confrontation. P sued Plantation and its owner, James Corsi, Jr., on the grounds that they had failed to provide adequate lighting and security for patrons in the restaurant's lot, and also had failed to exercise reasonable care in disbursing alcoholic beverages to Ds. P also alleged that Ds had negligently or intentionally struck him as he left the Plantation, causing P to sustain physical injuries and economic loss. Ds denied fault and filed cross-claims for contribution. P settled with Zecchino, Angelo, Andrich, Philbin, and LaBanca for a total of $21,750. Plantation's owner, Corsi, was dismissed as an individual defendant in the course of the trial. The jury found Plantation negligent and determined that its negligence had been a proximate cause of P's injuries. The jury also found that Andrich, Philbin, LaBanca, and Angelo had committed an intentional assault and battery against P. Finally, the jury found that P's own negligence had contributed to his injuries. The trial court, apparently of the view that negligent conduct could not be compared with intentional conduct, instructed the jury to compare only the relative fault of the two negligent parties, P and Plantation. The jury awarded P $150,000 in compensatory damages, apportioning seventy percent of the causal negligence to Plantation and thirty percent to P. The court reduced the judgment by thirty percent to reflect the jury's apportionment of fault to P. The court then divided the balance of $ 105,000 on a pro rata basis among Plantation and the four individual defendants. P's recovery totaled $42,750, consisting of $21,750 from the settling defendants and a $21,000 judgment against Plantation representing its pro rata share of the judgment reduced to reflect P's negligence. P appealed claiming that the Comparative Negligence Act mandates apportionment of fault among all parties to an injury, and that Plantation should have received a credit calculated on the basis of the settling defendants' percentage of fault. However, because no percentage of fault had been allocated to the intentional tortfeasors, P concluded that Plantation was responsible for seventy percent of the fault attributed to it by the jury, less a pro tanto reduction for the $21,750 plaintiff had received from the settling tortfeasors. The Appellate Division held that the jury verdict was incomplete because the jury did not apportion a percentage of fault to the intentional tortfeasors. The court determined that because the intentional tortfeasors had acted in a 'concerted and conspiratorial' manner, their fault should be considered collectively in relation to that of Plantation. The court determined that the injuries to P were 'indivisible and * * * incapable of any reasonable or practical division,' and therefore assessed fifty percent of the fault to Plantation and fifty percent to the intentional tortfeasors as a group. The court calculated Plantation's liability by subtracting $22,500-plaintiff's thirty-percent allocation of fault-from $75,000-Plantation's fifty-percent share of the $150,000 verdict-resulting in a total judgment of $52,500. This appeal resulted.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.