Blazovic v. Andrich

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the negligence of one party should be compared with the intentional fault of another party in substantially the same way as though both parties were negligent
• holding that the negligence of one party should be compared with the intentional fault of another party in substantially the same way as though both parties were negligent
• requiring fact-finder to apportion relative percentages of fault for injuries to victim of parking lot assault between alleged negligent plaintiff, alleged negligent restaurant and alleged intentional tortfeasors
• construing state comparative fault statute to permit apportionment of fault between a contributorily negligent plaintiff, a negligent codefendant, and several settling codefendants whose fault was alleged to have been based upon intentional conduct
• construing state comparative fault statute to permit apportionment of fault between a contributorily negligent plaintiff, a negligent codefendant, and several settling codefendants whose fault was alleged to have been based upon intentional conduct
• “We are unpersuaded by the decisions of other jurisdictions that reject apportionment of fault in actions involving intentional tortfeasors.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).