Quick Answer
Comparative negligence is a fault-sharing system. If you were partly responsible for your accident, you can still recover damages in Nevada as long as your fault is not greater than the combined fault of the defendant(s), but your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault (NRS 41.141(1)–(2)).
Contributory negligence is the older, harsher rule used in a small number of jurisdictions where any plaintiff fault can completely bar recovery. Nevada does not use pure contributory negligence in ordinary personal injury cases. Nevada uses modified comparative negligence by statute (NRS 41.141).
1) Comparative negligence vs. contributory negligence, the practical difference
Contributory negligence
Under contributory negligence, if the injured person is even 1% at fault, the injured person recovers nothing. Nevada has moved away from that approach for ordinary negligence personal injury cases through its comparative negligence statute (NRS 41.141).
Comparative negligence
Under comparative negligence, fault is allocated among the people and entities who contributed to the injury. In Nevada, the plaintiff’s damages are reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault, and the plaintiff is barred only if the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the negligence of the defendant(s) (NRS 41.141(1)–(2)).
2) Nevada’s rule is “modified comparative negligence,” the 51% bar rule
Nevada’s comparative negligence law is statutory. The key parts work like this:
- If the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the negligence of the defendant(s), the plaintiff cannot recover (NRS 41.141(1)).
- If the plaintiff’s negligence is not greater, the plaintiff can recover, but damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s negligence (NRS 41.141(2)).
Example
- Total damages: $100,000
- Plaintiff is 20% at fault
- Defendant(s) are 80% at fault
Plaintiff can recover $80,000 because the award is reduced by 20% (NRS 41.141(2)).
Another example (the bar)
- Total damages: $100,000
- Plaintiff is 51% at fault
- Defendant(s) are 49% at fault
Plaintiff recovers $0 because the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the defendants’ combined negligence (NRS 41.141(1)).
3) How fault is actually decided in a Nevada injury case
Fault allocation usually comes from evidence, and then is expressed as percentages in a verdict form or settlement evaluation. Common sources of comparative fault evidence include:
- Traffic-law violations and driver conduct
- Safety-rule violations in premises cases (spills, uneven flooring, warnings)
- Witness testimony
- Surveillance video
- Accident reconstruction
- Medical causation proof and credibility
In litigation, comparative negligence is typically raised as a defense in the pleadings, and fault is commonly allocated through a verdict form or special interrogatories at trial (NRCP 8(c); NRCP 49).
Nevada’s Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that negligence cases often turn on fact-intensive reasonableness questions, which is why comparative negligence becomes central in real-world outcomes (Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 180 P.3d 1172 (2008)).
4) Comparative negligence in multi-defendant cases, apportionment matters
When more than one defendant is involved, Nevada’s comparative negligence statute does more than reduce the plaintiff’s recovery. It also drives how responsibility is allocated among defendants.
Nevada’s Supreme Court has addressed apportionment and comparative negligence principles in multi-party litigation, including how fault allocation issues are presented and litigated (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)).
5) Nevada generally uses “several liability,” not automatic joint and several liability
Many people assume “the defendant pays everything,” but Nevada generally makes each defendant responsible only for their share of damages in negligence cases, subject to statutory exceptions (NRS 41.141(3)–(4)).
What this means practically:
- If there are multiple defendants, identifying all responsible parties early can significantly affect recovery and settlement leverage, because each defendant’s percentage can control what that defendant must pay (NRS 41.141; Café Moda, LLC v. Palma, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137 (2012)).
6) How comparative negligence shows up in common Nevada injury cases
Car accidents
Comparative negligence disputes often focus on speed, lookout, following distance, lane changes, distraction, and right-of-way.
Slip and fall cases
Nevada premises cases frequently involve arguments that the plaintiff should have seen the condition or avoided it. Nevada has clarified that an “open and obvious” condition is not an automatic bar to liability, it is analyzed within the broader reasonableness and comparative negligence framework (Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012)).
Negligent security cases
Defendants often argue the victim’s conduct contributed to the harm. Duty and foreseeability issues can also matter in these cases (Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 221 P.3d 1276 (2009)).
Nevada legal authorities cited
- NRS 41.141(1)–(4).
- NRCP 8(c).
- NRCP 49.
- Café Moda, LLC v. Palma, 128 Nev. 78, 272 P.3d 137 (2012).
- 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).
- 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