Are night clubs liable if you injure yourself

Premises liability claims are a difficult area. In Nevada, a proprietor owes an invitee a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use. Elko Enterprises v. Broyles, 105 Nev. 562, 565, 779 P.2d 961, 964 (1989). Merely because there is a slip on the property does not prove negligence by the property owner or that any such negligence caused the slip and fall. The Nevada Supreme Court has recently refined the standard for premises liability in Nevada in Foster v. Costco, 291 P.3d 150 (December 27, 2012). The new standard is based on the general duty of reasonable care: a land possessor owes a duty of reasonable care to entrants on the land with regard to: (a) conduct by the land possessor that creates risks to entrants on the land; (b) artificial conditions on the land that pose risks to entrants on the land; (c) natural conditions on the land that pose risks to entrants on the land; and (d) other risks to entrants on the land when any of the affirmative duties are applicable. The standards for slips and falls center on the foreseeability of foreign substances. “[A] business owes its patrons a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use.” Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 250, 849 P.2d 320, 322 (1993). Where a foreign substance causing a slip and fall is made to be on the floor by the business owner or one of its agents, then “liability will lie, as a foreign substance on the floor is usually not consistent with the standard of ordinary care.” Id. Traditionally, where a foreign substance causing a slip and fall results from “the actions of persons other than the business or its employees, liability will lie only if the business had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to remedy it.” (underline added) Id. at 250, 849 P.2d at 322-23. What this means is that your brother would have to prove that the club knew or should have known about the puddle on the floor.