Van Horn v. William Blanchard Co.
New Jersey Supreme Court
438 A.2d 552 (1981)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Lloyd Van Horn (plaintiff) was injured on the job. The job’s general contractor was William Blanchard Company (Blanchard) (defendant). Epic Construction Company (Epic) (defendant) was a subcontractor. Van Horn sued Blanchard and Epic for negligence. New Jersey’s Comparative Negligence Act, which applied to Van Horn’s suit, was taken almost verbatim from Wisconsin’s comparative-negligence statute. At the time New Jersey borrowed the statutory language, Wisconsin courts had made it clear that in Wisconsin a plaintiff’s negligence was to be compared to only one defendant at a time, not to the negligence of multiple defendants combined. The jury found Van Horn to be 50 percent negligent, Blanchard to be 30 percent negligent, and Epic to be 20 percent negligent. As Van Horn’s negligence was the highest single percentage, the trial court entered judgment for Blanchard and Epic. The appellate court affirmed. Van Horn appealed, arguing that his negligence should be compared to the negligence of both Blanchard and Epic combined.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clifford, J.)
Dissent (Handler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
