Lawsuit Information Center
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 for bringing 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 defending against stale claims. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190
Nevada has a general 2-year statute of limitations that applies to personal injury lawsuits. This means that, in most cases, the injured party must file their lawsuit within two years of the accident or injury. As discussed below, however, there are a number of exceptions to this.
Like most other states, Nevada follows the “discovery rule” to determine when a “claim accrues” and the 2-year limitations period begins. Under this doctrine, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that they potentially have a legal claim against the defendant.
In auto accident cases, the claim accrues on the date of the accident because any reasonable person should understand they have a claim against an at-fault driver. In malpractice cases, however, the date when the claim accrues can be much more complicated.
Nevada Birth Injury Statute of Limitations
NRS 41A.097(5) governs the statute of limitations and statute of repose for birth injury claims. This statute allows plaintiffs to sue healthcare providers on behalf of a child for brain damage or birth defects up until the child’s 10th birthday.
SOL for Nevada Sex Abuse Lawsuits
Nevada has significantly strengthened the legal rights of child sexual abuse survivors, enacting laws that give victims meaningful time to come forward and pursue civil accountability against those who harmed them.
Under Nevada Revised Statute 11.215, survivors of child sexual abuse or sexual exploitation have until their 38th birthday to file a civil lawsuit. That window represents 20 years beyond the age of majority, a recognition by the Nevada Legislature that childhood trauma is complex, that survivors often do not fully process what happened to them until well into adulthood, and that the legal system should not slam the door on victims before they are ready or able to walk through it.
This is a significant departure from the stricter deadlines that have historically barred many abuse survivors from ever seeing their day in court. For decades, short statutes of limitations meant that by the time many victims understood the full scope of what was done to them, identified their abusers, or felt safe enough to come forward, their legal options had already expired. Nevada’s expanded window addresses that reality directly.
The practical impact is substantial. Survivors who were abused as young children now have decades to build their lives, process their trauma, find legal representation, and make informed decisions about whether to pursue civil claims. Civil lawsuits can provide not only financial compensation but also a measure of accountability and acknowledgment that the legal system too often denied survivors in the past.
Survivors considering a civil claim in Nevada should consult with an attorney experienced in childhood sexual abuse litigation, as specific facts, defendants, and circumstances can affect how the statute applies to individual cases.
Nevada Personal Injury Law: Quick Reference Chart
These are the Nevada injury law rules readers usually need to understand first: filing deadlines, fault rules, damages, and special deadlines for medical malpractice, birth injury, and child sexual abuse claims.
Modified Comparative Fault
In cases where both the plaintiff and the defendant are partly to blame for causing an accident, Nevada employs a special legal principle known as the modified comparative fault rule. This rule reduces the compensation that an injured party can receive based on their proportionate share of fault.
Here’s an example to illustrate this concept: Imagine you’re walking to work when a driver hits you. At the time, you were crossing the street against the traffic signal. The total damages resulting from the accident amount to $10,000, but the jury determines that you were 40 percent responsible and the driver 60 percent at fault.
According to Nevada’s modified comparative fault rule, you would be entitled to collect $6,000 from the driver as compensation for your injuries. This figure represents the $10,000 total, minus $4,000 (40 percent), which reflects the portion of fault assigned to you.
In Nevada, you can still recover a portion of damages as long as your responsibility for the accident is less than 50 percent. However, if you’re found more at fault than the defendant, your damages award is automatically reduced to zero, and you’re prohibited from recovering anything from any other parties deemed at fault.
In cases where fault is divided, Nevada courts are obligated to apply the modified comparative fault rule. Insurance adjusters typically reference this rule during settlement negotiations, so it’s essential to be prepared to discuss it, even outside a courtroom.
Nevada Damages Caps
Nevada has special laws that impose caps on the amounts of certain types of damages that plaintiffs can recover in personal injury cases. Nevada’s damages cap applies only to medical malpractice cases. It does not apply to other types of personal injury cases.
Nevada caps “non-economic damages” in medical malpractice cases at $350,000, which is a very low amount. Non-economic damages include things like pain and suffering, which is always a very big part of any damage award. This cap does not affect “economic” damages like medical bills and lost wages, and it does not affect any other kind of personal injury case, just those stemming from medical errors.
Why the ridiculous pain and suffering cap in Nevada? The conventional wisdom that got the bill past the Nevada legislature was that high malpractice verdicts deterred doctors from practicing in Nevada. But it now appears that strict licensing requirements and the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners for overzealous regulation were the real obstacles. Nevada’s high standards for medical licensure, including three years of postgraduate training, are seen as barriers, especially when compared to other states with lower requirements. Additionally, the state’s reluctance to enter into licensing reciprocity agreements and the Board’s discretionary use of licensure by endorsement complicate the recruitment of new doctors. So victims do not get a fair shot at justice to keep doctors in Nevada yet the state is still struggling to keep doctors.
Nevada Dog Bite Injury Law
Nevada does not have a dedicated dog bite statute the way many other states do. Instead, Nevada dog bite claims are governed by common law negligence principles, which place the burden on the injured person to demonstrate that the animal’s owner knew or should have known that the dog had dangerous tendencies before the attack occurred.
This legal framework is commonly known as the “one bite” rule, and understanding how it works is critical for anyone injured by a dog in Nevada.
Under the one bite rule, a dog owner is not automatically liable the first time their animal injures someone. Liability depends on whether the owner had prior knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. That knowledge can be established in several ways. A prior bite is the most obvious example, but it is not the only one. Evidence that the dog had previously lunged at people, acted aggressively toward strangers, been kept as a guard dog, or been the subject of complaints from neighbors can all be used to show that the owner was on notice that the animal posed a risk.
This is an important distinction from strict liability states, where an owner can be held responsible for a first bite regardless of any prior knowledge. In Nevada, the victim bears the burden of building that evidentiary record, which makes early investigation and evidence preservation essential in these cases.
Owners can also be held liable under general negligence principles, even apart from the one-bite framework. If an owner allowed a dog to run loose in violation of a local leash ordinance, for example, that violation can itself serve as evidence of negligence, potentially supporting a claim even without proof of prior dangerous behavior.
Damages available in a successful Nevada dog bite claim can include compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, scarring and disfigurement, and emotional distress. In cases involving children, courts are often particularly attentive to the long-term psychological impact of a traumatic animal attack.
Anyone injured by a dog in Nevada should consult with a personal injury attorney as soon as possible. Evidence of prior dangerous behavior can be difficult to obtain and tends to disappear quickly, and witnesses to the attack or prior incidents should be identified and interviewed early in the process.
Nevada Leash Law
Leash rules vary across Nevada and are set at the city and county level, but violations carry real legal consequences everywhere they apply.
In Clark County, it is a misdemeanor to allow a dog to be at large in public without a leash or tether (Clark County Code § 10.36.040). In Washoe County, which includes Reno, Washoe County Code § 55.100 requires that dogs be kept on a leash in any public area within congested parts of the county, and violations are also misdemeanors.
When a dog owner violates these leash laws and an attack occurs, that violation can be treated as negligence per se, meaning it serves as automatic evidence of negligence without requiring the plaintiff to prove the owner failed to act reasonably. So a victim bitten by an unleashed dog in a jurisdiction with a leash ordinance may have a viable claim even if the dog had never shown aggression before.
Nevada Negligent Security Lawsuits
Negligent security lawsuits in Nevada are governed by premises liability law. Negligent security cases seek to hold property owners liable for injuries to visitors or customers caused by inadequate security. Nevada negligent security lawsuits are often based on criminal actions occurring at apartment complexes, hotels, shopping malls, and parking garages. The underlying premise of any negligent security lawsuit in Nevada is the property owner’s failure to provide reasonable security measures, resulting in harm or injury to an individual who was lawfully present on the premises.
Nevada Product Liability Lawsuits
The law of product liability in Nevada seeks to hold manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and related parties liable for harm to consumers or users caused by products they manufacture or sell. Nevada product liability law generally follows the basic theories of liability set forth in the Restatement of Torts:
Manufacturing defects: A defective condition caused by an issue during the manufacturing process that makes the product harmful
Design defects: A defective design occurs when the product is manufactured correctly, but its intended design is somehow harmful, often due to a hidden hazard.
Failure to Warn: These involve insufficient instructions or warnings regarding the product’s proper use or potential associated risks.
According to product liability law, individuals harmed by defective products may seek compensation for various damages, including medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, and other related losses. Product liability cases often entail intricate investigations, expert testimony, and legal proceedings to establish liability and secure equitable compensation for the injured party.
Mass Torts
Our mass tort lawyers are taking many product liability cases in Nevada, including:
- Roundup Cancer Lawsuits: The Roundup lawsuits revolve around allegations that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, causes cancer. Glyphosate is one of the most widely used herbicides globally, manufactured by Monsanto (now owned by Bayer AG).
- AFFF Lawsuits: AFFF firefighting foam was used for decades to put out fires fueled by accelerants. Individuals who have been exposed to AFFF, such as firefighters and military personnel, may develop health problems because the chemicals in AFFF have been linked to cancer.
- Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuits: Uber is facing lawsuits from passengers who allege they were sexually assaulted by Uber drivers. These lawsuits accuse the company of failing to conduct proper background checks and not implementing adequate safety measures to protect riders. As you can imagine, Nevada is a hotbed for these claims.
- Depo-Provera Brain Tumor Lawsuits: Plaintiffs claim that the birth control shot Depo-Provera caused them to develop intracranial hypertension, a serious brain condition that can lead to headaches, vision problems, and even permanent damage. The lawsuits allege the manufacturer failed to properly warn about this risk.
- Bard PowerPort Lawsuits: Patients are filing lawsuits over Bard PowerPort implantable catheter devices, claiming the ports are prone to fracturing or migrating, which can lead to bloodstream infections, blood clots, organ damage, and the need for corrective surgery. These claims allege design defects and a failure to warn about known risks.
Damages in Nevada Personal Injury Cases
Under Nevada law, anyone physically injured by the negligent actions of another can hold them financially responsible for their resulting “damages” caused by that negligence. Damages are intended to make the plaintiff whole by restoring them to their position before the injuries. In Nevada, personal injury plaintiffs are entitled to 3 different categories of damages:
- Lost Income: Nevada plaintiffs can get damages for any lost wages or lost income that they incurred as a direct result of the injuries caused by the defendant. Here is an example of how lost income damages work. Let’s say Billy is rear-ended by Nancy and Billy injures his back. Billy can’t return to his job as a roofer for seven months after the accident. When he finally does go back, Billy can no longer get up on the roofs, and his company has to move him to a desk job that pays $20,000 less per year. If Billy files a lawsuit against Jane, he would be entitled to damages for the seven months of lost wages plus the $20,000 per year in future lost income.
- Medical Expenses: Nevada accident victims are entitled to compensation for the full cost of all medical care and treatment for the injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the full cost as long as the treatment is medically necessary and reasonable. This includes the cost of future medical treatment that may be required down the road.’
- Pain & Suffering: under Nevada law, injured plaintiffs can also collect damages for mental pain & suffering related to the physical injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence.
Nevada Verdicts and Settlements
Below are summaries of recent verdicts and publicly reported settlements from Nevada personal injury cases.
- $3,400,000 Verdict (Nevada 2026): A man slipped on a wet marble floor at a Las Vegas casino in 2018, suffering serious back injuries that required cervical injections, ablations, nerve stimulator implants, and surgery, with past and future medical expenses exceeding $2 million. Plaintiff argued casino staff had no regular maintenance rotation schedule, meaning no employee could account for how long the liquid had been on the floor, and that the casino bore full responsibility for conditions in the facility. The defense argued there was no conclusive proof of what caused the fall, noting the plaintiff carried a beer and a flask, did not file an incident report, and had been receiving chiropractic treatment for degenerative back issues before the incident. The jury found the casino liable but assigned the plaintiff 50 percent of the fault, reducing the collectible award to approximately $1.7 million under Nevada comparative negligence law.
- $15,000,000 Verdict (Las Vegas 2025): A Nevada jury awarded damages to a woman who developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome after slipping on a spilled drink during a private event at The Cosmopolitan Hotel in Los Vegas. The casino argued that the party organizers, not the hotel, bore responsibility, and that there was insufficient time to clean the spill. However, the jury rejected these defenses, awarding approximately $1 million for medical expenses and $14 million for pain and suffering. Surveillance footage and testimony from a corporate representative were pivotal in establishing liability. The verdict exceeded a $12 million pre-trial demand, significantly outpacing the defense’s $2.75 million offer of judgment. The jury reached a unanimous decision after only 75 minutes of deliberation.
- $10,975,000 Verdict (2024): A 71-year-old man underwent a robotically assisted laparoscopic hernia repair surgery. During the procedure, the defendant punctured the plaintiff’s abdominal aorta, causing major internal bleeding, and the man died from loss of blood. His estate brought a wrongful death lawsuit alleging surgical negligence. The jury awarded over $10 million in damages, which included $1.8 million in punitive damages.
- $10,812,875 Verdict (2023): The plaintiff was injured at the defendant’s trampoline park facility when another patron at the trampoline park jumped on top of him. The plaintiff reportedly suffered compound tibia-fibula fractures in both legs which required surgery and resulted in complex regional pain syndrome in both legs. He allegedly required additional surgeries to his right leg for evacuation of hematoma and to his right ankle for contracture/heel cord tightening. The jury awarded $10.8 million in damages, but the award was reduced by 20% based on the plaintiff’s comparative fault.
- $3,273,840 Verdict (2023): The plaintiff was stopped at a red light at an intersection when the defendant violently rear-ended him. The plaintiff’s physical injuries were not specified in the verdict summary. Still, they must have been major because the verdict included $900,00 for past and future medical expenses, plus $2.5 million for pain and suffering.
- $4,600,000 Verdict (2023): A 78-year-old male suffered fatal injuries when, as he made a left-hand turn from southbound travel, a northbound vehicle operated by the defendant struck his vehicle in a signal-controlled intersection. The estate brought a wrongful death action with allegations that the defendant driver failed to yield the right-of-way and was speeding at the time of the crash. The defendant was intoxicated and was arrested at the accident site for driving under the influence.
- $50,000 Settlement (2023): The plaintiff, a 10-year-old male, was injured while a passenger of a southbound vehicle that was involved in a collision with a northbound vehicle operated by the defendant when she executed a left turn in front of the plaintiff’s host vehicle. The plaintiff claimed to have suffered a concussion, cervical and lumbar strains, a front wall thorax strain, myalgia, and anxiety/acute stress reaction due to the collision.
- $91,919 Verdict (2023): Plaintiffs, a 19-year-old female, and her passenger, an 18-year-old female, were injured when their vehicle was struck from the rear while stopped by a vehicle operated by the defendant. The 19-year-old plaintiff reported injuries including cervical and thoracic facet syndrome, left shoulder tendon tearing and cervical and thoracic strains. She got $51,811. The passenger plaintiff claimed injuries, including segmental dysfunction and strain of the thoracic and lumbar spine, and lumbar spinal stenosis. She received $40,148.
- $2,045,118 Verdict (2022): said her eastbound vehicle was T-boned by a southbound vehicle operated by the defendant. The plaintiff reported injuries, including carpal tunnel syndrome, cubital tunnel syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, cervical disc displacement leading to spinal radiculopathy, and a concussion. The plaintiff claimed she would require future care, which included the installation of a spinal cord stimulator and ganglion block injections. The verdict included $313,000 in past medical expenses and $1 million in future medical expenses.
- $39,000 Verdict (2022): The plaintiff was operating his automobile when it was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed he suffered unspecified personal injuries due to the collision. The plaintiff alleged the defendant was negligent and negligent per se for failing to maintain a safe following distance, failing to yield the right-of-way, failing to keep a proper lookout, and driving at an excessive speed.
Contact Us About Nevada Personal Injury Lawsuits
Our firm handles serious injury and wrongful death lawsuits in Nevada, working with trusted colleagues in Nevada who also have a track record of success in personal injury cases. If you were hurt and believe you have a potential claim and you want justice, click here for a free no-obligation consultation or call us today at 800-553-8082.