Articles Posted in Nevada

On this page we will explain some of the key points of law applicable to personal injury lawsuits in Nevada, including the statute of limitations. We will also explain what the average settlement payout is in Nevada personal injury lawsuits and review some recent verdicts and settlements from Nevada.

2-Year Statute of Limitations for Nevada Personal Injury Lawsuits

All statutes have laws called statutes of limitations. A statute of limitations is a law that sets a time limit on the right to bring a legal action. Once this time period expires, the injured party typically loses the right to file a lawsuit related to that particular event. Statutes of limitations serve several purposes, including ensuring that legal actions are pursued in a timely manner, preserving evidence while it is still fresh, and protecting defendants from having to defend against stale claims. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190

This article explores negligent security lawsuits in Nevada, their components, and how to effectively establish a claim. Our lawyers explain Nevada’s negligent security law and look at settlement amounts and jury payouts in these lawsuits. The claims are not filed for minor injuries. These lawsuits usually involve tragic circumstances, and the settlement compensation and jury awards are typically high, given the severity of the harm and suffering to the victim and the victim’s family.

Negligent Security Defined

Negligent security lawsuits pertain to cases where a crime or violent act occurred due to a property owner’s failure to implement sufficient security measures. Claims can be brought against security companies, property management firms, property owners, and tenants who neglect to put reasonable safety precautions in place. The fundamental principle is that the crime could have been prevented if the defendant had cared enough to employ adequate security measures to protect the people they are making money from as customers.

This page digs into medical malpractice lawsuits in Nevada. Our lawyers focus on the potential settlement amounts victims see, often strong settlements in spite of Nevada’s cap on noneconomic damages.

The aim is to provide you with an understanding of what your medical negligence claim might be worth in terms of a settlement or jury payout. Our lawyers also explain Nevada’s medical malpractice laws in layman’s terms, as if we were explaining them to you directly, not as an explanation for a Nevada malpractice attorney.

If you have a potential claim, you want to know what it it worth. The main objective of any personal injury or wrongful death claim is to secure financial compensation.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported yesterday on a case pending in the Nevada Supreme Court which may have a major impact on the extent to which stadium owners can be held liable when fans are injured during sporting events.

The Turner Case

Five years ago, plaintiff Kathleen Turner (not the actress) was struck by a foul ball while she was sitting in a mezzanine seating area at Les Vegas’ Cashman Stadium. Turner’s attorney claims that the beer garden area, where fans can not see the baseball game being played on the field below, created a false sense of security for the spectators. Ms. Turner was struck in the face by a foul ball and lost consciousness. She suffered a broken nose and had to undergo reconstructive surgery.

Trial Court Ruling

The trial judge found that the Defendant did not breach any duty of care to Plaintiffs to protect them from harm.  The court further found there was no duty in this case for the Defendant to protect Plaintiff Kathleen Turner from the foul ball. Moreover, the trial court found that even if there were any such duty, the foul ball is a known and obvious risk. Plaintiff appealed.

The Defense Argument

injured fans sports eventsThomas Dillard, the lawyer representing the park’s owner, argues that this case involves an implied assumption of risk. He states that although Ms. Turner could not see the game, she was repeatedly made aware of the risk of stray balls in the stadium. The stadium posts warning signs at the entrance to the park, screens, and plexiglass are installed in certain areas to protect fans, every ticket bears a notice of liability, and there are even warnings issued over the park’s public address system. He failed to add that common sense also tells you of the risk of a foul ball when you go to a baseball game.

The Nevada Supreme Court will decide whether or not implied assumption of risk can apply to Ms. Turner’s case, and in doing so, Nevada may become one of the many states that abide by the “baseball rule.”

The article seems to think the ruling is relevant to whether major league baseball comes to Nevada. I think it overstates the economics of the outcome of this case. This issue of baseball in Nevada involves one thing: gambling.

My Hypothetical

Generally speaking, we presume fans to have assumed the risk of getting hit by a baseball at a baseball game. In the Sports Law class that I teach, I argue that the best scenario for a plaintiff’s verdict would be if you came to the game and specifically requested a ticket safe from a potential foul ball and you still get hit by one. Like many of my best law school hypotheticals, this has probably never happened and could never be proved even if it did.

Continue reading

Contact Information