Quick Answer
Yes, often you can still recover in Nevada even if you are partially at fault, as long as your negligence is not greater than the combined negligence of the defendant(s). Your compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault (NRS 41.141(1)–(2)).
If you are found more at fault than the defendant(s) (51% or more), you are barred from recovery (NRS 41.141(1)).
1) Nevada’s partial-fault rule, the exact legal standard
Nevada’s comparative negligence statute controls the answer:
- If your negligence is greater than the negligence of the defendant(s), you recover nothing (NRS 41.141(1)).
- If your negligence is not greater, you recover damages reduced by your percentage of negligence (NRS 41.141(2)).
This “not greater” language is why Nevada is commonly described as a 51% bar state for negligence claims (NRS 41.141(1)–(2)).
2) What “reduced by your percentage” looks like in real numbers
Example 1: You are 10% at fault
- Total damages: $200,000
- Your fault: 10%
- Recoverable: $180,000
Because the damages are reduced by 10% (NRS 41.141(2)).
Example 2: You are 50% at fault
- Total damages: $200,000
- Your fault: 50%
- Recoverable: $100,000
Because 50% is not greater than 50%, recovery is still allowed, reduced accordingly (NRS 41.141(1)–(2)).
Example 3: You are 51% at fault
- Total damages: $200,000
- Your fault: 51%
- Recoverable: $0
Because your negligence is greater than the defendants’ combined negligence (NRS 41.141(1)).
3) Partial fault in multi-defendant cases, how Nevada apportionment changes strategy
In cases with multiple defendants, the “can I recover?” question is still based on whether your fault is greater than the combined fault of the defendant(s) (NRS 41.141(1)). But the payout mechanics often depend on how fault is allocated across defendants.
Nevada’s Supreme Court has addressed fault allocation and apportionment issues in multi-party negligence litigation, including how comparative fault disputes are litigated and presented (Café Moda, LLC v. Palma, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137 (2012); Humphries v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 788, 312 P.3d 484 (2013)).
Also, Nevada generally applies several liability in negligence cases, meaning each defendant is typically responsible for their share, subject to statutory exceptions (NRS 41.141(3)–(4)). That is one reason identifying every responsible party matters, missing a defendant can shift fault to the plaintiff or leave damages uncompensated (NRS 41.141).
4) Common ways Nevada defendants argue you were partially at fault
Auto and truck collision cases
Insurers frequently argue comparative negligence based on:
- speeding,
- following too closely,
- improper lane changes,
- distraction,
- failure to keep a proper lookout.
Slip and fall cases
Defendants may argue you were not paying attention, wore improper footwear, ignored warnings, or should have avoided the condition. Nevada has clarified that “open and obvious” does not automatically eliminate the defendant’s duty, it becomes part of the reasonableness and comparative negligence evaluation (Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012)).
Negligent security cases
Defendants may argue you increased risk or failed to act reasonably under the circumstances. Duty and foreseeability issues can also drive these cases (Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 221 P.3d 1276 (2009)).
5) How partial fault is proven, and why evidence preservation matters
Partial fault is not decided by who “sounds believable” on a phone call. It is decided by evidence. The strongest cases often include:
- objective scene evidence (photos, video, skid marks, property conditions),
- neutral witnesses,
- consistent medical documentation,
- expert analysis when needed (reconstruction, safety, medical causation).
Nevada courts recognize serious consequences when key evidence is destroyed or not preserved in appropriate circumstances (Stubli v. Big D Int’l Trucks, Inc., 107 Nev. 309, 810 P.2d 785 (1991); Fire Ins. Exch. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 103 Nev. 648, 747 P.2d 911 (1987)).
6) Practical guidance if you suspect you share some fault
- Do not assume you are “too at fault to recover,” Nevada law often still allows recovery if you are 50% or less at fault (NRS 41.141(1)–(2)).
- Be careful with recorded statements, because partial admissions are often used to inflate comparative fault.
- Preserve evidence quickly, especially video and physical evidence, because comparative fault disputes are evidence-driven (Stubli v. Big D Int’l Trucks, Inc., 107 Nev. 309, 810 P.2d 785 (1991)).
- Track damages carefully, because even a reduced recovery can still be substantial if injuries and future damages are well-supported.
Nevada legal authorities cited
- NRS 41.141(1)–(4).
- Café Moda, LLC v. Palma, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137 (2012).
- Fire Ins. Exch. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 103 Nev. 648, 747 P.2d 911 (1987).
- Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012).
- Humphries v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 788, 312 P.3d 484 (2013).
- Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 221 P.3d 1276 (2009).
- Stubli v. Big D Int’l Trucks, Inc., 107 Nev. 309, 810 P.2d 785 (1991).
If you need assistance with your personal injury case, don’t hesitate to contact Friedman Injury Law.
Friedman Injury Law
375 N. Stephanie St., Ste. 1411
Henderson, NV 89014
P: (702) 970-4222
W: blakefriedmanlaw.com