What Makes Las Vegas Slip and Fall Cases Special in Nevada?

In Las Vegas car accident cases, the at fault party is usually pretty clear. However, in slip in fall accidents, who is ultimately held responsible for a person’s injuries, is sometimes disputed. Traditionally, in Nevada, if a danger was “open and obvious”, then the owner of the property where someone fell, historically would not be liable for a person’s injuries after a fall. Additionally, if there was ‘no time’ for the property owner to find out about the danger, then the property owner usually was not held to be liable. An example is when a patron is walking, drops something, and causing the person walking behind them, to slip and fall. In the above example, the property owner would deny any culpability and it would be up to the judge and jury to assign blame. 

However, there are two well known exceptions to the traditional slip and fall rule just discussed. The first exception is often referred to as the recurrent risk approach. The recurrent risk approach was laid out in the Nevada Supreme Court case of Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 251 (1993). In Sprague, the Nevada Supreme Court held that whether the property owner had knowledge of "chronic hazard" of debris on floor in produce department, was an issue for the jury to decide. If it was proved at trial that there was in fact a recurrent risk, then the property owner would liable for the slip and fall victim’s injuries.

The second and more recent exception to the traditional slip and fall rule in Nevada, was carved out by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2012. It is called the negligent mode-of-operation liability theory (“NMOO”).   FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 278 P. 3d 490 (2012) 128 Nev. Adv. Op. No 26.

In NMOO cases, if the property owner has a negligent mode of operating, then they are held liable for a slip and fall victim’s injuries. The Giglio court found that in a self-serve context, the NMOO liability theory applies. So, let’s say for example, Donald Lim is out to dinner at a self serve restaurant. While Donald is walking to his table, he slips and falls on food or liquid on the floor, which was dropped by another guest. Based upon the NMOO, your highly skilled Las Vegas slip and fall attorney will argue, it is foreseeable that the people carrying food or drinks will get food or drinks on the floor, causing people like Donald to fall.  Pursuant to the 2012 Giglio case on NMOO, Donald does not need to prove actual or constructive notice at the time of trial. It is foreseeable that people are going to fall.

In addition to Nevada law recognizing the NMOO concept, other states also recognize it.  Owens v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 802 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2001) (if the evidence establishes a specific negligent mode of operation such that the premises owner could reasonably anticipate that dangerous conditions would arise as a result of its mode of operation, then whether the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the specific foreign substance is not an issue).

Next time we will discuss special issues in economic losses in Las Vegas, Nevada.