Skip to Main Content

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

(702) 970-4222

Injured at Work in Nevada, Can I Sue My Employer or a Third Party?

• FAQ

If you were hurt on the job in Nevada, it is normal to wonder whether you can file a lawsuit, especially if someone besides your employer caused the accident. Nevada’s workers’ compensation system generally replaces the right to sue your employer for negligence, but Nevada law also preserves third-party lawsuits in many work-injury situations.

Quick answer

  • Usually, you cannot sue your employer for negligence for a workplace injury in Nevada because workers’ compensation is typically the “exclusive remedy.” (NRS 616A.020(1); NRS 616B.612(4)).
  • You often can sue a negligent third party (a person or company other than your employer or someone legally treated as being “in the same employ”). (NRS 616C.215(2)(a)).
  • There are limited exceptions where a lawsuit against an employer may be possible, such as when the employer failed to secure required coverage, or in narrow intentional-injury scenarios discussed by Nevada courts. (NRS 616B.636; Conway v. Circus Circus Casinos, Inc., 116 Nev. 870, 8 P.3d 837 (2000); Advanced Countertop Design, Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Ct., 115 Nev. 268, 984 P.2d 756 (1999); Barjesteh v. Faye’s Pub, Inc., 106 Nev. 120, 787 P.2d 405 (1990)).

1) Nevada workers’ comp is usually the exclusive remedy against your employer

Nevada’s Industrial Insurance Act is designed as a trade-off:

  • Employers provide no-fault workers’ compensation coverage for job-related injuries, and
  • In exchange, employers are generally protected from civil lawsuits seeking tort damages for those same injuries.

Nevada’s exclusive-remedy rule appears in multiple places in the statutory scheme. (NRS 616A.020(1); NRS 616B.612(4)). Nevada Supreme Court decisions consistently treat this as a core feature of the system. (Frith v. Harrah S. Shore Corp., 92 Nev. 447, 552 P.2d 337 (1976)).

What this means in real life

If you were injured at work because:

  • your employer failed to keep the premises safe,
  • a supervisor made a mistake,
  • training was poor,
  • staffing was inadequate, or
  • a co-worker acted negligently,

then your primary remedy is typically a workers’ compensation claim, not a negligence lawsuit against the employer. (NRS 616A.020(1); NRS 616B.612(4); Lipps v. S. Nev. Paving, 116 Nev. 497, 998 P.2d 1183 (2000)).

2) Can you sue your employer anyway? The main Nevada-law pathways (and why they are uncommon)

A) If the employer failed to secure required coverage, a lawsuit may be allowed

Nevada law provides that if an employer who is required to provide coverage fails to “provide and secure” compensation, an injured employee may bring an action at law “as if” the industrial insurance chapters did not apply. (NRS 616B.636(1)).

Nevada case law recognizes this uninsured-employer pathway. (Richard Matthews, Jr., Inc. v. Vaughn, 91 Nev. 583, 540 P.2d 1062 (1975)).

Practical point: uninsured-employer cases can become aggressively defended and fact-intensive, so a careful coverage investigation is often critical.

B) “Intentional injury” theories are narrow, and Nevada courts set a high bar

People understandably ask: “What if my employer’s conduct was more than negligence?”

Nevada decisions draw a hard line between negligence and the kind of intent that can potentially fall outside the exclusivity bargain. In discussing when an employee can escape the exclusivity rule, the Nevada Supreme Court has stated that the employee must show the employer “deliberately and specifically intended to injure” the employee. (Conway v. Circus Circus Casinos, Inc., 116 Nev. 870, 876–77, 8 P.3d 837, 841–42 (2000)).

Also, Nevada’s election-of-remedies and “accord and satisfaction” case law matters a lot here:

  • Nevada has recognized that an employer does not automatically receive immunity for intentional torts in every circumstance, but
  • Nevada has also held that acceptance of a final workers’ compensation award can extinguish common-law rights against the employer through accord and satisfaction principles. (Advanced Countertop Design, Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Ct., 115 Nev. 268, 273–76, 984 P.2d 756, 759–61 (1999); Arteaga v. Ibarra, 109 Nev. 772, 775–76, 858 P.2d 387, 389–90 (1993); Stevenson v. Kollsman Mineral & Chem. Corp., 91 Nev. 529, 539 P.2d 463 (1975)).

Nevada cases also address timing and the interplay between a workers’ comp claim and an intentional-tort theory. (Barjesteh v. Faye’s Pub, Inc., 106 Nev. 120, 123–26, 787 P.2d 405, 407–09 (1990)).

Bottom line: “I think my employer acted recklessly” is usually not enough in Nevada to convert a work injury into a viable tort suit against the employer. The facts must meet a much higher intent threshold, and strategic decisions inside the comp claim can affect later civil options. (Conway, 116 Nev. at 876–77, 8 P.3d at 841–42; Advanced Countertop, 115 Nev. at 273–76, 984 P.2d at 759–61).

C) Trying to sue the employer in a “different capacity” is usually a dead end in Nevada

Sometimes an injured worker thinks the employer can be sued because the employer is also a property owner, manufacturer, or customer. Nevada law has rejected this as a general workaround. (Watson v. G.C. Assocs., Ltd., 100 Nev. 586, 691 P.2d 417 (1984); Harris v. Rio Hotel & Casino, Inc., 117 Nev. 482, 25 P.3d 206 (2001)).

3) Suing a third party for a workplace injury in Nevada

Nevada expressly allows third-party actions when a work injury was caused under circumstances creating liability in a person “other than the employer or a person in the same employ.” (NRS 616C.215(2)(a)).

Common examples of third parties in Nevada work-injury cases

  • A negligent driver who hit you while you were working.
  • A property owner or maintenance company (depending on statutory-employer immunity issues discussed below).
  • A product manufacturer (defective machine, tool, ladder, lift, safety device).
  • A subcontractor or vendor (depending on whether they are treated as “in the same employ” under Nevada law).

4) Many “third parties” are treated as your statutory employer or statutory co-employee and may be immune

This is where Nevada workplace-injury law becomes highly Nevada-specific.

Nevada’s scheme is “uniquely different” in how it can treat subcontractors and independent contractors as statutory employees for immunity purposes. (Meers v. Haughton Elevator, 101 Nev. 283, 285, 701 P.2d 1006, 1007 (1985).) Statutes then codify and refine these concepts. (NRS 616A.210(1); NRS 616B.603; Hays Home Delivery, Inc. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nev., 117 Nev. 678, 31 P.3d 367 (2001)).

A) “Same employ” and statutory co-employee immunity

The “same employ” limitation in the third-party statute is a major limitation on who you can sue. (NRS 616C.215(2)(a).) Nevada decisions interpret and apply this concept in various contexts. (Cardenas Vda. de Aragonez v. Taylor Steel Co., 85 Nev. 718, 462 P.2d 754 (1969)).

B) Principal contractors, subcontractors, and independent contractors

Nevada law can deem subcontractors and independent contractors, and their employees, to be employees of the principal contractor for NIIA purposes. (NRS 616A.210(1)).

Nevada case law has developed tests for when a contractor is considered part of the same “trade, business, profession or occupation,” and therefore protected by the NIIA umbrella. (Meers, 101 Nev. at 285–86, 701 P.2d at 1007–08; Hays Home Delivery, 117 Nev. 678, 31 P.3d 367 (2001); Tucker v. Action Equipment & Scaffold Co., 113 Nev. 1349, 951 P.2d 1027 (1997); Lipps, 116 Nev. 497, 998 P.2d 1183 (2000)).

C) Specialized repairs: a key Nevada exception that can keep a “third party” suable

Not every contractor gets immunity. Nevada recognizes that when an independent contractor is performing major or specialized repairs that the employer is not equipped to handle, that contractor may fall outside statutory employee immunity. (Meers, 101 Nev. at 286, 701 P.2d at 1007–08; D & D Tire, Inc. v. Ouellette, 131 Nev. 407, 352 P.3d 32 (2015)).

In D & D Tire, the Nevada Supreme Court emphasized courts should evaluate the act in context of the overall specialized repair, not in isolation, when assessing whether immunity applies. (D & D Tire, 131 Nev. 407, 352 P.3d 32 (2015)).

D) Property owners can sometimes be immune too

Workers often assume: “I can sue the property owner where I was hurt.” In Nevada, that is not always true.

Nevada’s Supreme Court has recognized immunity principles that can extend to property owners who hire Nevada-licensed principal contractors, with the immunity tied to risks associated with the licensed work. (Harris, 117 Nev. 482, 25 P.3d 206 (2001); Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 122 Nev. 1213, 148 P.3d 684 (2006)).

Richards is especially important because it clarifies that courts should resolve NIIA immunity questions under the applicable statutes, and it limits property-owner immunity to claims arising out of risks associated with the work the owner hired the contractor to perform. (Richards, 122 Nev. at 1216–17, 148 P.3d at 685).

5) If you sue a third party, workers’ comp still matters: Nevada lien and reimbursement law

A third-party case and a workers’ compensation claim can run at the same time, and they financially interact.

Nevada’s third-party statute requires a reduction of workers’ comp by damages recovered from the third party, and it provides the insurer/Administrator with statutory rights that can include a lien on recoveries. (NRS 616C.215(2)(a); NRS 616C.215(5)).

Nevada Supreme Court decisions emphasize that these lien and reimbursement questions are governed by the statute’s language. (AmTrust N. Am., Inc. v. Vasquez, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 61, 555 P.3d 1164 (2024)).

6) What to do after a Nevada workplace injury when a third party may be responsible

  1. Report the injury and document the scene (photos, names, incident reports, equipment IDs).
  2. Get medical care and follow up consistently, gaps in care often become defense arguments.
  3. File and protect your workers’ comp claim, even if you believe a third party is at fault.
  4. Identify every potentially responsible party early, including contractors, vendors, manufacturers, drivers, and property owners.
  5. Do not assume someone is suable, Nevada statutory-employer immunity can be complex and fact-driven. (NRS 616A.210(1); NRS 616B.603; Meers, 101 Nev. 283, 701 P.2d 1006 (1985); Richards, 122 Nev. 1213, 148 P.3d 684 (2006); D & D Tire, 131 Nev. 407, 352 P.3d 32 (2015)).

Nevada legal authorities cited

Statutes and rules

  • NRS 616A.020(1)
  • NRS 616A.210(1)
  • NRS 616B.603
  • NRS 616B.612(4)
  • NRS 616B.636(1)
  • NRS 616C.215(2)(a)
  • NRS 616C.215(5)

Cases

  • Advanced Countertop Design, Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Ct., 115 Nev. 268, 984 P.2d 756 (1999).
  • AmTrust N. Am., Inc. v. Vasquez, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 61, 555 P.3d 1164 (2024).
  • Arteaga v. Ibarra, 109 Nev. 772, 858 P.2d 387 (1993).
  • Barjesteh v. Faye’s Pub, Inc., 106 Nev. 120, 787 P.2d 405 (1990).
  • Breen v. Caesars Palace, 102 Nev. 79, 715 P.2d 1070 (1986).
  • Cardenas Vda. de Aragonez v. Taylor Steel Co., 85 Nev. 718, 462 P.2d 754 (1969).
  • Conway v. Circus Circus Casinos, Inc., 116 Nev. 870, 8 P.3d 837 (2000).
  • D & D Tire, Inc. v. Ouellette, 131 Nev. 407, 352 P.3d 32 (2015).
  • Frith v. Harrah S. Shore Corp., 92 Nev. 447, 552 P.2d 337 (1976).
  • Harris v. Rio Hotel & Casino, Inc., 117 Nev. 482, 25 P.3d 206 (2001).
  • Hays Home Delivery, Inc. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nev., 117 Nev. 678, 31 P.3d 367 (2001).
  • Lipps v. S. Nev. Paving, 116 Nev. 497, 998 P.2d 1183 (2000).
  • Meers v. Haughton Elevator, 101 Nev. 283, 701 P.2d 1006 (1985).
  • Poremba v. S. Nev. Paving, 133 Nev. 12, 388 P.3d 232 (2017).
  • Richard Matthews, Jr., Inc. v. Vaughn, 91 Nev. 583, 540 P.2d 1062 (1975).
  • Richards v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 122 Nev. 1213, 148 P.3d 684 (2006).
  • Stevenson v. Kollsman Mineral & Chem. Corp., 91 Nev. 529, 539 P.2d 463 (1975).
  • Tucker v. Action Equipment & Scaffold Co., 113 Nev. 1349, 951 P.2d 1027 (1997).
  • Watson v. G.C. Assocs., Ltd., 100 Nev. 586, 691 P.2d 417 (1984).

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_