top of page


  • Writer's picturePeter Lamont, Esq.

Allocation of Damages to Parties that Settle in a Negligence Case

Understanding Young v. Latta: A Landmark in New Jersey's Negligence Law

In negligence lawsuits, allocating damages among multiple defendants is complex and often contentious. The landmark New Jersey Supreme Court case of Young v. Latta, 123 N.J. 584 (1991), explains what happens when one defendant settles out of a lawsuit.



Before delving into the specifics of Young v. Latta, it is essential to understand the context. In negligence lawsuits involving multiple defendants, it’s often challenging to determine each party's degree of liability. This complexity is magnified when some defendants settle before the case reaches trial, leaving open the question of how their potential liability affects the remaining defendants.

The Case of Young v. Latta

In Young v. Latta, the New Jersey Supreme Court confronted this issue head-on. The case revolved around a medical malpractice lawsuit where multiple parties were alleged to have contributed to the plaintiff's harm. One of the critical questions was how to handle the liability of defendants who had settled before trial.

The Court’s Ruling

The ruling in Young v. Latta established a precedent that a non-settling defendant has the right to argue the liability of a settling defendant. Additionally, the court ruled that the non-settling defendant could demand a credit against any judgment and have the jury apportion the settling defendant’s liability. This decision was significant for several reasons:

  1. Expert Testimony: The court held that the testimony of a plaintiff's expert could be used to establish the "fault" of a settling defendant for apportionment purposes.

  2. Criteria for Apportionment: The court provided criteria for when a non-settling defendant could seek to have a settling defendant's liability apportioned by a jury. This included whether the settling defendant provided an expert witness asserting fault against them and whether the non-settling defendant had claimed the causative fault of the co-defendant(s) well before the trial.

Implications of the Ruling

The ruling in Young v. Latta had profound implications for negligence lawsuits in New Jersey:

  • It offered a clear guideline on how to deal with settling defendants' liability.

  • It highlighted the importance of expert testimony in establishing fault.

  • It paved the way for a more equitable distribution of liability among defendants.


Young v. Latta remains a cornerstone case in New Jersey’s legal system, particularly in negligence lawsuits. Its significance lies in its approach to handling the complex interplay of multiple defendants and their varying degrees of liability. As legal professionals, understanding the nuances of this case is crucial for effectively navigating the legal landscape of negligence lawsuits in New Jersey.

Contact us today to discuss your legal matter or litigation. Put our 20+ years of legal experience to work for you.


For detailed insights and legal assistance on topics discussed in this post, including litigation, contact the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont at our Bergen County Office. We're here to answer your questions and provide legal advice. Contact us at (201) 904-2211 or email us at

Interested in More Legal Insights?

Explore our range of resources on business and legal matters. Subscribe to our podcast and YouTube channel for a wealth of information covering various business and legal topics. For specific inquiries or to discuss your legal matter with an attorney from our team, please email me directly at or call at (201) 904-2211. Your questions are important to us, and we look forward to providing the answers you need.

Peter J. Lamont is a Top-Rated New Jersey Business Attorney

About Peter J. Lamont, Esq.

Peter J. Lamont is a nationally recognized attorney with significant experience in business, contract, litigation, and real estate law. With over two decades of legal practice, he has represented a wide array of businesses, including large international corporations. Peter is known for his practical legal and business advice, prioritizing efficient and cost-effective solutions for his clients.

Peter has an Avvo 10.0 Rating and has been acknowledged as one of America's Most Honored Lawyers since 2011. 201 Magainze and Lawyers of Distinction have also recognized him for being one of the top business and litigation attorneys in New Jersey. His commitment to his clients and the legal community is further evidenced by his active role as a speaker, lecturer, and published author in various legal and business publications.

As the founder of the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont, Peter brings his Wall Street experience and client-focused approach to New Jersey, offering personalized legal services that align with each client's unique needs and goals​


DISCLAIMERS: The contents of this website and post are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. The contents of this website and the posting and viewing of the information on this website should not be construed as, and should not be relied upon for, legal or tax advice in any particular circumstance or fact situation. Nothing on this website is an offer to represent you, and nothing on this website is intended to create an attorney‑client relationship. An attorney-client relationship may only be established through direct attorney‑to‑client communication that is confirmed by the execution of an engagement agreement.

As with any legal issue, it is important that you obtain competent legal counsel before making any decisions about how to respond to a subpoena or whether to challenge one - even if you believe that compliance is not required. Because each situation is different, it may be impossible for this article to address all issues raised by every situation encountered in responding to a subpoena. The information below can give you guidance regarding some common issues related to subpoenas, but you should consult with an attorney before taking any actions (or refraining from acts) based on these suggestions. Separately, this post will focus on New Jersey law. If you receive a subpoena in a state other than New Jersey, you should immediately seek the advice of an attorney in your state, as certain rules differ in other states.

Disclaimer: Recognition by Legal Awards

The legal awards and recognitions mentioned above are not an endorsement or a guarantee of future performance. These honors reflect an attorney's past achievements and should not be considered as predictors of future results. They are not intended to compare one lawyer's services with other lawyers' services. The process for selecting an attorney for these awards can vary and may not include a review of the lawyer's competence in specific areas of practice. Potential clients should perform their own evaluation when seeking legal representation. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Recent Posts

See All


5 üzerinden 0 yıldız
Henüz hiç puanlama yok

Puanlama ekleyin
bottom of page