Quick Answer
In Nevada, personal injury damages are generally designed to compensate you for losses caused by someone else’s negligence. Damages usually fall into three broad categories:
- Economic damages (medical bills, wage loss, out-of-pocket losses, future care, future earning capacity). Hall v. SSF, Inc., 112 Nev. 1384, 930 P.2d 94 (1996).
- Noneconomic damages (pain and suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life). Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984). Banks ex rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp., 120 Nev. 822, 102 P.3d 52 (2004).
- Punitive damages (rare, reserved for oppression, fraud, or malice, and governed by statute). NRS 42.005. Kmart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987).
What you can recover depends on proof of liability, medical causation, damages evidence, and defenses such as comparative negligence. NRS 41.141.
1) Economic damages in Nevada
Economic damages are financial losses that can be measured with records and credible proof.
A) Past medical expenses
This can include emergency care, imaging, specialist visits, therapy, prescriptions, surgery, and other reasonable treatment tied to the injuries.
B) Future medical expenses and rehabilitation costs
Nevada recognizes that a plaintiff may recover future medical expenses that are a natural and probable consequence of the tort and reasonably necessary. Hall v. SSF, Inc., 112 Nev. 1384, 930 P.2d 94 (1996). Lerner Shops of Nev., Inc. v. Marin, 83 Nev. 75, 423 P.2d 398 (1967).
C) Past lost wages
If injuries kept you from working, you may recover the wages and employment benefits you would have earned but for the injury, when causation is proven. Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005).
D) Loss of future earning capacity
Nevada recognizes that injuries can reduce what a person can earn over time, and future earning capacity damages may be recoverable when supported by evidence. Freeman v. Davidson, 105 Nev. 13, 768 P.2d 885 (1989).
E) Household services and replacement services
If you can no longer perform household tasks you previously performed, Nevada recognizes household services as a compensable economic loss. Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 955 P.2d 661 (1998).
F) Out-of-pocket losses and related expenses
These can include:
- medications not fully covered
- medical equipment
- transportation and mileage
- co-pays and deductibles
- paid help for tasks you can no longer do
G) Property damage (in auto cases)
Property damage claims often involve different proof and sometimes different limitations periods than bodily injury claims, depending on the specific claim being pursued. NRS 11.190(3)(c). NRS 11.190(4)(e).
2) Noneconomic damages in Nevada
Noneconomic damages compensate human losses that are real but not tied to invoices.
A) Pain and suffering and disability
Nevada recognizes pain and suffering and related general damages as classic personal injury damages, generally left to the factfinder based on the evidence. Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984). Brownfield v. Woolworth Co., 69 Nev. 294, 248 P.2d 1078 (1952).
B) Loss of enjoyment of life
Nevada recognizes loss of enjoyment of life within general damages. Banks ex rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp., 120 Nev. 822, 102 P.3d 52 (2004).
C) Future pain and suffering must be supported, not speculative
When future pain, disability, or impairment is subjective and disputed, Nevada authority emphasizes that competent evidence is needed, not speculation. State, Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Sutton, 120 Nev. 972, 103 P.3d 8 (2004). Krause Inc. v. Little, 117 Nev. 929, 34 P.3d 566 (2001). Gutierrez v. Sutton Vending Serv., Inc., 80 Nev. 562, 397 P.2d 3 (1964). Paul v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 111 Nev. 1544, 908 P.2d 226 (1995).
3) Punitive damages in Nevada
Punitive damages are not awarded in ordinary negligence cases. They require a statutory showing of oppression, fraud, or malice, proven by clear and convincing evidence, and they are subject to statutory limitations and exceptions. NRS 42.005. Kmart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987).
4) Derivative and special claims related to injury damages
A) Loss of consortium
A spouse may have a separate claim for loss of consortium in appropriate circumstances. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366 (1972).
B) Wrongful death and survival actions (when injuries result in death)
If an injury results in death, Nevada has specific wrongful death and survival statutes that define who may recover and what damages may be pursued. NRS 41.085. NRS 41.100.
5) Important Nevada limitations that can affect “what you can recover”
A) Comparative negligence
Nevada’s modified comparative negligence statute can reduce damages proportionally and can bar recovery if the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the defendants’ combined negligence. NRS 41.141. Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984).
B) Collateral source rule
Nevada generally applies a strict collateral source rule in tort cases, which can prevent a negligent defendant from reducing liability simply because insurance or other collateral benefits paid certain losses. Proctor v. Castelletti, 112 Nev. 88, 911 P.2d 853 (1996). Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006). Nevada has a specific statute addressing collateral benefits and periodic payments in professional negligence actions against health care providers. NRS 42.021.
C) Caps in certain case types
Some Nevada claims have statutory limits depending on who is being sued and the claim type, including:
- Claims against the State and political subdivisions. NRS 41.035.
- Noneconomic damages caps in professional negligence actions against providers of health care. NRS 41A.035.
- Punitive damages limitations and exceptions. NRS 42.005.
6) Proving damages, the proof rules matter as much as the categories
Even if a damage category exists, you must prove it with competent evidence.
- Medical causation often requires expert proof to a reasonable medical probability when beyond common knowledge. Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005). Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 262 P.3d 360 (2011).
- Nevada procedure requires meaningful disclosure of damages computations and supporting documents. NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C). Pizarro-Ortega v. Cervantes-Lopez, 133 Nev. 261, 396 P.3d 783 (2017).
Nevada legal authorities cited
- NRS 11.190(3)(c).
- NRS 11.190(4)(e).
- NRS 41.035.
- NRS 41.085.
- NRS 41.100.
- NRS 41.141.
- NRS 41A.035.
- NRS 42.005.
- NRS 42.021.
- Banks ex rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp., 120 Nev. 822, 102 P.3d 52 (2004).
- Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006).
- Brownfield v. Woolworth Co., 69 Nev. 294, 248 P.2d 1078 (1952).
- Freeman v. Davidson, 105 Nev. 13, 768 P.2d 885 (1989).
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P.2d 366 (1972).
- Gutierrez v. Sutton Vending Serv., Inc., 80 Nev. 562, 397 P.2d 3 (1964).
- Hall v. SSF, Inc., 112 Nev. 1384, 930 P.2d 94 (1996).
- Kmart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987).
- Krause Inc. v. Little, 117 Nev. 929, 34 P.3d 566 (2001).
- Lerner Shops of Nev., Inc. v. Marin, 83 Nev. 75, 423 P.2d 398 (1967).
- Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005).
- Paul v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 111 Nev. 1544, 908 P.2d 226 (1995).
- Pizarro-Ortega v. Cervantes-Lopez, 133 Nev. 261, 396 P.3d 783 (2017).
- Proctor v. Castelletti, 112 Nev. 88, 911 P.2d 853 (1996).
- Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984).
- State, Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Sutton, 120 Nev. 972, 103 P.3d 8 (2004).
- Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984).
- Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 262 P.3d 360 (2011).
- NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C).
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