What Is Negligence, and How Do You Prove It in Nevada?

Quick Answer

In Nevada, negligence generally means failing to use reasonable care under the circumstances, and that failure causes injury. To prove negligence in a Nevada personal injury case, a plaintiff must typically prove:

1. the defendant owed a duty of care,
2. the defendant breached that duty,
3. the breach caused the injury (causation), and
4. the plaintiff suffered damages.

Nevada case law commonly describes these as the essential elements of negligence (Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 180 P.3d 1172 (2008)).

1) Element One: Duty, did the defendant owe you a legal duty?

Duty is often the threshold question. Courts evaluate whether the law recognizes a relationship or circumstance requiring the defendant to act with reasonable care toward the plaintiff (Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 180 P.3d 1172 (2008)).

Examples of duties in common Nevada injury cases

• Drivers must operate vehicles with reasonable care.
• Businesses must use reasonable care to keep premises reasonably safe for invitees. Nevada has emphasized that “open and obvious” does not automatically eliminate the duty, it is considered within reasonableness and comparative negligence (Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012)).
• In negligent security contexts, foreseeability concepts can shape duty analysis in certain settings (Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 221 P.3d 1276 (2009)).

2) Element Two: Breach, how do you show the defendant failed to use reasonable care?

Breach is usually proven by showing what the defendant did (or failed to do) and why it was unreasonable under the circumstances.

Common breach proof includes:

• photographs and video,
• witness testimony,
• physical evidence (vehicle damage, defects, measurements),
• policies and procedures (inspection schedules, safety protocols),
• expert testimony when specialized knowledge is required.

Negligence per se, a powerful breach shortcut in Nevada

Nevada recognizes negligence per se in appropriate cases. If a defendant violates a safety statute designed to protect a class of persons (like motorists or pedestrians) from the type of harm that occurred, that violation can establish duty and breach (Anderson v. Baltrusaitis, 113 Nev. 963, 944 P.2d 797 (1997); Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 669 P.2d 709 (1983); Sagebrush Ltd. v. Carson City, 99 Nev. 204, 660 P.2d 1013 (1983)).

Negligence per se does not automatically end the case, defendants may still contest causation and damages, and comparative negligence can still apply.

3) Element Three: Causation, did the breach actually cause the injury?

Causation is where many cases are won or lost.

A) Medical causation often requires expert testimony

When the cause of an injury is not within common understanding, Nevada requires competent medical testimony, and expert evidence is often necessary (Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005)).

B) Watch for common causation defenses

Defendants frequently argue:

• the injury was preexisting,
• symptoms began too late to be crash-related,
• the plaintiff had treatment gaps,
• the mechanism of injury does not match the diagnosis.

Consistent medical documentation and accurate histories often make causation disputes easier to resolve.

4) Element Four: Damages, what can you recover in a Nevada negligence case?

Damages are generally the monetary measure of harm caused by the negligence.

A) Economic damages

• medical expenses,
• future medical care,
• lost wages,
• loss of earning capacity,
• out-of-pocket losses.

B) Non-economic damages

• pain and suffering,
• loss of enjoyment of life,
• emotional distress in appropriate circumstances.

Nevada recognizes that the valuation of non-economic damages is typically for the factfinder and is not a strict formula (Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984); Brownfield v. Woolworth Co., 69 Nev. 294, 248 P.2d 1078 (1952)).

C) Collateral source rule

Nevada’s collateral source rule generally prevents a defendant from reducing damages just because insurance or another collateral source paid some amounts (Proctor v. Castelletti, 112 Nev. 88, 911 P.2d 853 (1996)).

D) Punitive damages in extreme cases

Punitive damages require a heightened showing and are governed by statute (NRS 42.005). Nevada punitive damages jurisprudence emphasizes that punitive awards are reserved for conduct involving oppression, fraud, or malice (NRS 42.005; Kmart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987)).

5) Nevada comparative negligence, how your fault changes the outcome

Even if you prove negligence, Nevada’s comparative negligence statute can reduce or bar recovery.

• If your negligence is greater than the defendant’s negligence, recovery is barred.
• If your negligence is not greater, damages are reduced proportionally (NRS 41.141; Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984)).

In multi-defendant cases, Nevada’s apportionment framework is central, and defendants often try to shift fault to each other and to the plaintiff (NRS 41.141; 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)).

6) Ordinary negligence vs. professional negligence in Nevada

Some claims that “feel like negligence” are legally treated as professional negligence, especially in healthcare settings.

Nevada defines professional negligence by a provider of health care by statute (NRS 41A.015; NRS 41A.017). Those cases have special procedural requirements, including the expert affidavit requirement (NRS 41A.071). This distinction matters because misclassifying a case can cause dismissal.

7) The burden of proof and the deadline

In civil negligence cases, the plaintiff must prove the elements by the applicable civil standard, and the case must be filed on time.

For many Nevada personal injury cases, the limitations period is two years (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

Nevada legal authorities cited

• NRS 11.190(4)(e).
• NRS 41.130.
• NRS 41.141.
• NRS 41A.015.
• NRS 41A.017.
• NRS 41A.071.
• NRS 42.005.
• Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 180 P.3d 1172 (2008).
• Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 221 P.3d 1276 (2009).
• Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012).
• Anderson v. Baltrusaitis, 113 Nev. 963, 944 P.2d 797 (1997).
• Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 669 P.2d 709 (1983).
• Sagebrush Ltd. v. Carson City, 99 Nev. 204, 660 P.2d 1013 (1983).
• Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005).
• Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984).
• Brownfield v. Woolworth Co., 69 Nev. 294, 248 P.2d 1078 (1952).
• Proctor v. Castelletti, 112 Nev. 88, 911 P.2d 853 (1996).
• Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984).
• 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).
• Kmart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987).

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

Sharing is caring: