Krzykalski v. Tindall
181 A.3d 981
N.J.2018Background
- Collision: Plaintiff's car stopped in left lane; an unidentified vehicle (John Doe) from the right lane made an improper left turn, cutting off traffic; defendant rear‑ended plaintiff and injured him.
- Plaintiff sued defendant and named John Doe in the complaint; plaintiff also had an unresolved uninsured motorist (UM) claim and rejected his UM carrier's policy‑limit settlement offer.
- Defendant pleaded that John Doe caused the collision (third‑party negligence/cross‑claims) and asked for fault allocation against any settling or nonparty tortfeasors.
- At trial the court, over plaintiff's objection, included John Doe on the verdict sheet; the jury apportioned 97% fault to John Doe and 3% to defendant, awarding plaintiff damages.
- Appellate Division affirmed; plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court arguing John Doe (an unidentified, unrepresented person) cannot be treated as a “party” for CNA fault allocation and that allowing such allocation permits an improper "empty chair" defense.
- Supreme Court affirmed: known but unidentified (phantom) motorists who are alleged joint tortfeasors may be allocated fault under the Comparative Negligence Act when parties and UM carrier had fair and timely notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a jury may allocate fault to a known but unidentified (John Doe) tortfeasor under the CNA | John Doe is not a true party; allowing allocation is unfair and permits an "empty chair" defense when John Doe is unnamed/unrepresented | Allocation is proper because joint‑tortfeasor status—not formal party status—controls; allocation furthers CNA's fair‑sharing purpose | Held: Yes. Known but unidentified drivers (phantom vehicles) may be fault‑allocated if parties and UM carrier had fair and timely notice |
| Whether UM carrier must intervene/be joined before fault can be allocated to John Doe | Court should require UM carrier to defend John Doe or be joined to protect interests and avoid double recovery | No mandatory joinder; UM carrier had notice and the option to intervene; allocation may proceed without carrier participation | Held: No mandatory joinder; carrier need not intervene if it had notice and chose not to participate |
| Whether allowing allocation creates an improper precedent enabling blame‑shifting to outsiders | Permits strategic blaming of nonparties and slippery slope of defendants naming fictitious outsiders | CNA and JTCL aim to apportion fault regardless of collectability; rules and notice requirements limit abuses | Held: Not a forbidden precedent; allocation permitted but subject to notice safeguards to prevent unfair surprise |
| Whether prior cases (e.g., Bencivenga) bar allocation to John Doe | Relies on Bencivenga to argue fictitious persons cannot be parties for allocation | Distinguishes Bencivenga: there the identified defendant was better positioned to find the assailant; here John Doe was a phantom vehicle with UM coverage framework | Held: Bencivenga is distinguishable; John Doe here is a known but unidentified phantom vehicle and may be allocated fault |
Key Cases Cited
- Riccio v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 108 N.J. 493 (N.J. 1987) (upheld allocation to a known but unidentified driver in UM context)
- Cockerline v. Menendez, 411 N.J. Super. 596 (App. Div. 2010) (allowed fault allocation to phantom vehicle drivers where roles were acknowledged and UM carrier intervened)
- Bencivenga v. J.J.A.M.M., Inc., 258 N.J. Super. 399 (App. Div. 1992) (refused jury consideration of an unidentified assailant; distinguished here)
- Young v. Latta, 123 N.J. 584 (N.J. 1991) (allocation to settling or dismissed tortfeasors permitted only with fair and timely notice)
- Brodsky v. Grinnell Haulers, Inc., 181 N.J. 102 (N.J. 2004) (discusses "empty chair" defense and CNA allocation principles)
- Jones v. Morey's Pier, Inc., 230 N.J. 142 (N.J. 2017) (permitted allocation to a dismissed defendant where parties were on notice of intent to seek apportionment)
- Town of Kearny v. Brandt, 214 N.J. 76 (N.J. 2013) (discusses JTCL/CNA framework and standard of review)