Nevada Torts

Front 1

Remedies for Conversion of Business Inventory

Back 1

Where the conversion of virtually all of a business's inventory causes the demise of the business, the plaintiff may recover for the value of the business itself as well as the lost inventory.

Front 2

Castle Doctrine and Wrongful Death Claims

Back 2

A person using deadly force against an intruder in his residence is presumed to have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury.

A personal injury or wrongful death action to recover damages against the person who attacked the intruder must overcome the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.

Front 3

In defamation claims, are restaurants public figures?

Back 3

For purposes of a restaurant review, restaurants are places of public accommodation that seeks public patronage; thus, they are limited-purpose public figures.

Front 4

Learned-Intermediary Doctrine

Back 4

Pharmacists have no duty to warn their customers of the generalized risks inherent in the prescriptions they fill; however, they are not insulated from liability if they have knowledge of a customer-specific risk.

Front 5

Duty of Care Owed to Those on the Premises

Back 5

An owner or occupier of land has a general duty of reasonable care to those coming onto her land, regardless of whether the injured party is a trespasser, licensee, or invitee.

Front 6

Building Code in Negligence Per Se Claims

Back 6

Violation of a building code that has been adopted as a county ordinance may serve as a basis for a negligence per se claim.

Front 7

Good Samaritan Statute

Back 7

Both trained professionals and volunteers acting in good faith are not liable for ordinary negligence when providing emergency medical care.

Front 8

Plaintiff's Negligence and Res Ipsa Loquitur

Back 8

When the plaintiff's negligence is greater than the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff is precluded from using res ipsa loquitur.

Front 9

Medical Malpractice Damage Cap

Back 9

In medical malpractice cases, Nevada caps recovery of non-economic damages at $350,000 per incident. However, plaintiff may still recover damages for loss of chance.

Front 10

Loss of Chance

Back 10

The defendant's medical malpractice more probably than not decreased a substantial chance of survival, and the injured person ultimately died or was severely debilitated.

Front 11

Economic Loss Doctrine

Back 11

A plaintiff may not recover in tort for purely monetary harm in products liability and negligence cases unless there is also personal injury or property damage.

NOTE: where the defendant had a duty imposed by law and his intentional breach caused purely economic harm, plaintiff may recover in tort.

Front 12

Comparative Negligence

Back 12

Nevada has adopted partial comparative negligence, allowing recovery so long as the plaintiff's own negligence is not greater than that of the defendant or that of the combined negligence of multiple defendants.

Front 13

Actual Cause and Adequate Warning

Back 13

Plaintiff must show that an adequate warning would have been read and heeded in products liability cases premised on failure to warn.

Front 14

Respondeat Superior and Intentional Torts

Back 14

An employer is liable for his employee's intentional tortious conduct unless it was:

1. a truly independent venture of the employee;

2. not committed in the course of a task assigned to the employee; and

3. not reasonably foreseeable considering the nature and scope of his employment.

Front 15

Tavernkeeper Liability

Back 15

Tavernkeepers are not liable in a tort action for damages caused by serving intoxicated patrons or minors.

Front 16

Joint and Several Liability

Back 16

Joint and several liability has been abolished in negligence cases. It is retained for strict liability cases, intentional torts, toxic waste cases, or when defendants act in concert.

Front 17

Intrafamily Tort Immunity

Back 17

Nevada has abrogated the common law doctrine of interspousal tort immunity, at least for claims arising from motor vehicle accidents. Nevada has also abrogated the doctrine of parent-child tort immunity.

Front 18

Governmental Tort Immunity

Back 18

Government actions are considered discretionary and therefore immune when they involve an element of individual judgment or choice, and are based on considerations of social, economic, or political policy.

Front 19

Crime Victim Immunity

Back 19

A person who is convicted of a felony or domestic violence may not bring an action against the victim or the victim's estate for injuries sustained by the offender during the course of the crime.