What Is Comparative Fault in Las Vegas Negligence Cases?
In cases where the other side might argue that you, as the injured person, were at fault, we apply “comparative negligence” law in Las Vegas personal injury cases. “Comparative negligence” law in Nevada means, that the jury will “compare” and assign fault percentages to both the injured and at-fault parties.
Nevada courts have held that “the purpose of the comparative negligence statute [is] to eradicate the harsh effect of a plaintiff's contributory negligence whenever such negligence is not greater than that of the source against which recovery is sought.” Mizushima v. Sunset Ranch, 103 Nev. 259, (1987).
The applicable statute is NRS §41.141. NRS §41.141 says that if an injured party [Plaintiff] is not more at-fault than the party they are claiming caused the accident, [Defendant], they can still make a successful personal injury claim against the Defendant. However, if the jury finds the Plaintiff 50% or less at fault for causing the accident, the jury award will be reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to the Plaintiff. NRS §41.141 provides in applicable part:
NRS 41.141 When comparative negligence not bar to recovery; jury instructions; liability of multiple defendants.
1. In any action to recover damages for death or injury to persons or for injury to property in which comparative negligence is asserted as a defense, the comparative negligence of the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s decedent does not bar a recovery if that negligence was not greater than the negligence or gross negligence of the parties to the action against whom recovery is sought.
2. In those cases, the judge shall instruct the jury that:
(a) The plaintiff may not recover if the plaintiff’s comparative negligence or that of the plaintiff’s decedent is greater than the negligence of the defendant or the combined negligence of multiple defendants.
(b) If the jury determines the plaintiff is entitled to recover, it shall return:
(1) By general verdict the total amount of damages the plaintiff would be entitled to recover without regard to the plaintiff’s comparative negligence; and
(2) A special verdict indicating the percentage of negligence attributable to each party remaining in the action.
3. If a defendant in such an action settles with the plaintiff before the entry of judgment, the comparative negligence of that defendant and the amount of the settlement must not thereafter be admitted into evidence nor considered by the jury. The judge shall deduct the amount of the settlement from the net sum otherwise recoverable by the plaintiff pursuant to the general and special verdicts. 4. Where recovery is allowed against more than one defendant in such an action, except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, each defendant is severally liable to the plaintiff only for that portion of the judgment which represents the percentage of negligence attributable to that defendant.
5. This section does not affect the joint and several liability, if any, of the defendants in an action based upon:
(a) Strict liability;
(b) An intentional tort;
(c) The emission, disposal or spillage of a toxic or hazardous substance;
(d) The concerted acts of the defendants; or
(e) An injury to any person or property resulting from a product which is manufactured, distributed, sold or used in this State. . . . .
Based upon NRS §41.141, if the jury finds the injured party 20% at fault for the accident, the judge will reduce the jury award by 20%. Since you cannot be more at fault, if the jury found the injured party 60% at fault, NRS §41.141 would bar the injured party from any recovery.
Next time, we will discuss the “Seat-belt Rule” in Nevada car accident cases.
Komentar
Posting Komentar