Nevada Slip And Fall Legal Questions

Hello Deirdre, Thank you for submitting your question. There are many factors related to a slip and fall claim against a property owner. Please visit http://attorneyinjury.com for additional information and contact methods.  In order to properly evaluate your situation, you will need to provide additional information. Please feel free to call our offices at 702 734 3936. One of our experienced staff members will be happy to assist you. Thank you. Best personal regards, Edward J. Achrem & Associates, Ltd.... Read Answer

While the events may be related, the standards for care between the nail and the hole are arguably different under Nevada law.  To prevail on a traditional negligence theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that "(1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, (2) the defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages." DeBoer v. Sr. Bridges of Sparks Fam. Hosp., 282 P.3d 727,732 (2012).  The Nevada Supreme Court has held that a landowner should anticipate, and is liable for failing to remedy, the risk of harm from obvious hazards when an invitee could be distracted from observing or avoiding the dangerous condition, or may forget what he or she has discovered, and the landowner has reason to expect that the invitee will nevertheless suffer physical harm.  Traditionally, where the object 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.”  The presence of a nail in a vacant/vacated lot does not seem out of the ordinary. As to the hole, Nevada law generally imposes the general duty on property owners as set forth above.  There is an exception under NRS 455.010, which requires the erection of fence or other safeguard around excavation, hole or shaft.  "Any person. . . who shall dig, sink or excavate. . . or being the owner. . . of any shaft, excavation or hole. . . shall, during the time they may be employed in digging, sinking or excavating, or after they may have ceased work upon or abandoned the same, erect, or cause to be erected, good and substantial fences or other safeguards, and keep the same in good repair, around such works or shafts, sufficient to guard securely against danger to persons and animals from falling into such shafts or excavations."  Failure to abide by this statute is negligence per se  if the injured party belongs to the class of persons whom the statute was intended to protect, and the injury suffered is of the type the statute was intended to prevent. Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 120 Nev. 639, 640 (2004).  NRS 455.010 applies to all holes, permanent or temporary, and regardless of whether the person is a trespasser.  Ross v. Carson Construction, 106 Nev. 885, 887 (1990).... Read Answer

While you may have a claim against the bar (not directly against the insurance at this time), failure to provide security claims can be difficult. The Nevada Legislature enacted NRS 651.015 to “codify what was the old law with respect” to duty by innkeepers. In doing so, the Legislature set forth a general limitation precluding the imposition of civil liability on an innkeeper unless the death or injury of a patron was caused by the foreseeable wrongful act of a third party (duty), and there is a preponderance of evidence to show a failure to exercise due care. NRS 651.015(1). The preliminary inquiry in any case involving innkeeper liability is whether “[t]he wrongful act which caused the death or injury was foreseeable,” and thus, whether a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff. NRS 651.015(2)(a). The determination of foreseeability as it relates to an innkeeper's duty of care to a patron must be made by the district court as a matter of law. In determining whether a wrongful act is “foreseeable” and gives rise to a duty, a wrongful act is not “foreseeable” unless: (a) owner failed to exercise due care for the safety of the patron or other person on the premises; or (b) prior incidents of similar wrongful acts occurred on the premises and the owner had notice or knowledge of those incidents. NRS 651.015(3). "Although an innkeeper cannot guarantee the safety of guests, the Legislature recognized that certain minimum precautions are necessary and concluded that a judge should be given broad leeway in evaluating foreseeability on a case-by-case basis. Id. As a result, the Legislature added the phrase 'the owner or keeper failed to exercise due care for the safety of the patron or other person on the premises' to the definition of 'foreseeable,' which ensured that a duty could be imposed 'regardless of whether or not there had been prior [similar] incidents” of wrongful conduct.'" Estate of Smith v. Mahoney's Silver Nugget, 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 76, at p. 5 (2011). NRS 651.015(3) therefore allows a judge to evaluate evidence of “[p]rior incidents of similar wrongful acts” or any other circumstances related to the exercise of “due care” when imposing a duty, and to examine the “totality of the circumstances” beyond the existence of “similar wrongful acts” in determining the existence of a duty. Id.... Read Answer

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 triers of fact must weigh whether the property owner was negligent in having the parking stop versus the open and obvious nature of the parking stop.  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.  Landowners bear a general duty of reasonable care to all entrants, regardless of the open and obvious nature of dangerous conditions.   While the open and obvious nature of the conditions does not automatically preclude liability, it is part of assessing whether reasonable care was employed by the Owner. ... Read Answer

The statute of limitations for any action for personal injuries is four years in the State of Nevada.   "Except as otherwise provided in NRS 11.215, an action to recover damages for injuries to a person or for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another" must be brought within 2 years of the claim accruing. As to the question of whether he can be compensated, the standard for slips and falls is a negligence standard.  Just because your Husband fell does not necessarily mean the casino was negligent.  The owner or occupant of property is not an insurer of the safety of a person on the premises, and in the absence of negligence, no liability lies. Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel, 78 Nev. 182, 185, 370 P.2d 682, 684 (1962). An accident occurring on the premises does not of itself establish negligence. Id. Yet, a business owes its patrons a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use. Asmussen v. New Golden Hotel Co., 80 Nev. 260, 262, 392 P.2d 49 (1964). Where a foreign substance on the floor causes a patron to slip and fall, and the business owner or one of its agents (a) caused the substance to be on the floor or (b) if the business had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to remedy it. Id.  The Casino is not liable, however, for injuries caused by a dangerous condition that was open and obvious and could have been avoided in the exercise of reasonable care. Gunlock, 78 Nev. at 185, 370 P.2d at 684.   ... Read Answer