Skip to Main Content

CALL NOW FOR FREE CONSULTATION. YOU PAY NOTHING UNTIL WE WIN!

(702) 970-4222

If Multiple People Are at Fault, Can I Claim Against All of Them?

• FAQ

Quick Answer

Yes. If multiple people or companies contributed to your injuries, you can typically pursue claims against all responsible parties. Nevada’s modified comparative negligence statute allows fault to be allocated among multiple defendants, and your recovery may be reduced by your share of fault, if any (NRS 41.141(1)–(2)). Nevada also generally follows several liability, meaning each defendant usually pays only their percentage share of damages, subject to statutory exceptions (NRS 41.141(3)–(4)).

1) Nevada law allows multiple at-fault parties, and you can pursue all of them

Many accidents are not “one person’s fault.” Common multi-fault scenarios include:

  1. A multi-car crash where one driver rear-ends another and triggers a chain reaction.
  2. A crash involving both a negligent driver and a negligent employer (company vehicle, delivery driver).
  3. A premises injury where both a property owner and a maintenance contractor contributed.
  4. A construction or product-related injury involving multiple contractors or entities.

Nevada negligence cases are fact-driven, and the law generally allows you to sue any person or entity whose negligence was a legal cause of your injuries (Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 180 P.3d 1172 (2008)).

2) How Nevada handles shared fault, the comparative negligence framework

A) The rule

Nevada is a modified comparative negligence state:

  • If your negligence is greater than the combined negligence of the defendant(s), you recover nothing (NRS 41.141(1)).
  • If your negligence is not greater, your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault (NRS 41.141(2)).

B) Why this matters when multiple defendants are involved

With multiple defendants, the major questions become:

  1. Who should be on the verdict form, meaning which parties will have fault allocated to them.
  2. How fault gets divided, meaning what percentage is assigned to each defendant and to the plaintiff, if any.
  3. How that division affects the practical payout, because Nevada generally uses several liability (NRS 41.141(3)–(4)).

Nevada appellate decisions address fault allocation and the procedural handling of apportionment issues in multi-party negligence cases (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)).

3) Several liability in Nevada, who pays what

A critical concept in multi-defendant cases is that Nevada generally follows several liability, meaning each defendant is typically responsible for paying only their proportional share of damages, subject to statutory exceptions (NRS 41.141(3)–(4)).

Practical takeaway

If there are three responsible defendants and you pursue only one, you may be leaving recovery on the table depending on:

  • whether the other defendants can be identified and pursued,
  • how fault is allocated, and
  • whether the one defendant you sued has sufficient insurance limits or assets.

This is one reason early investigation matters in multi-fault cases, you want to identify all viable defendants while evidence is still available.

4) Common examples of “multiple people at fault” cases in Nevada

A) Multiple drivers in a crash

A multi-car crash often involves arguments like:

  • Driver A caused the initial collision,
  • Driver B was following too closely,
  • Driver C changed lanes unsafely,
  • One driver was distracted, impaired, or speeding.

Fault may be allocated across drivers, and your recovery can be reduced if you share any fault (NRS 41.141(1)–(2)).

B) Employer liability, when the at-fault driver was working

If the at-fault driver was acting within the scope of employment, the employer may be liable under respondeat superior principles (Nat’l Convenience Stores v. Fantauzzi, 94 Nev. 655, 584 P.2d 689 (1978); Molino v. Asher, 96 Nev. 814, 618 P.2d 878 (1980)).

This matters because employers often have higher insurance limits or commercial coverage that can affect real-world recovery.

C) Direct negligence claims against a business

Sometimes the business is liable not only vicariously, but also for its own negligence, such as negligent hiring, training, supervision, or retention in appropriate circumstances (Burnett v. C.B.A. Sec. Serv., 107 Nev. 787, 820 P.2d 750 (1991); Rockwell v. Sun Harbor Budget Suites, 112 Nev. 1217, 925 P.2d 1175 (1996)).

D) Property owner plus contractor

Premises injuries can involve both:

  • property owner duties (inspection, maintenance, warnings), and
  • contractor duties (cleaning company, maintenance vendor, security contractor).

Fault allocation principles then become central (NRS 41.141; Café Moda, LLC v. Palma, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137 (2012)).

5) Can defendants blame someone you did not sue?

In multi-fault cases, defendants often try to reduce their own percentage by pointing to other responsible actors. Nevada’s Supreme Court has addressed procedural issues surrounding the allocation of fault in multi-party cases, including nonparty allocation issues in appropriate circumstances (Humphries v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 788, 312 P.3d 484 (2013)).

Practical takeaway

To protect your recovery, it is usually smart to identify and evaluate all potentially responsible parties early, not only the obvious one.

6) What you should do if you think multiple parties share fault

  1. Preserve evidence immediately, video and physical evidence can disappear quickly. Nevada recognizes serious consequences when evidence is destroyed after notice of potential litigation (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)).
  2. Identify every entity involved, company vehicles, contractors, property managers, security vendors.
  3. Do not assume the “biggest insurance policy” is automatically responsible, liability is about negligence and causation, not only coverage (Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 180 P.3d 1172 (2008)).
  4. Be realistic about comparative negligence, because your own percentage matters under NRS 41.141.
  5. Calendar the statute of limitations, most Nevada personal injury actions must be filed within two years (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

Nevada legal authorities cited

  • NRS 11.190(4)(e).
  • NRS 41.141(1)–(4).
  • Burnett v. C.B.A. Sec. Serv., 107 Nev. 787, 820 P.2d 750 (1991).
  • 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).
  • Humphries v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 788, 312 P.3d 484 (2013).
  • Molino v. Asher, 96 Nev. 814, 618 P.2d 878 (1980).
  • Nat’l Convenience Stores v. Fantauzzi, 94 Nev. 655, 584 P.2d 689 (1978).
  • Rockwell v. Sun Harbor Budget Suites, 112 Nev. 1217, 925 P.2d 1175 (1996).
  • Stubli v. Big D Int’l Trucks, Inc., 107 Nev. 309, 810 P.2d 785 (1991).
  • Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 180 P.3d 1172 (2008).

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

@friedmaninjurylaw_