Skip to Main Content

What Is Nevada’s Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury Cases?


Quick Answer

In Nevada, most personal injury lawsuits must be filed within two years (NRS 11.190(4)(e)). That two-year rule applies to many accident cases, including car crashes, truck crashes, slip and falls, dog bites, and other negligence claims that cause bodily injury.

However, some categories have different timing rules, especially medical malpractice, and some claims have additional procedural prerequisites (NRS 41A.097; NRS 41.036). Tolling rules can also apply for minors and certain legal disabilities (NRS 11.250).

Because deadlines can be case-ending, the safest approach is to identify the correct limitations period early and protect it before negotiations stall.

1) The general Nevada deadline for personal injury, two years

Nevada’s general limitations statute provides a two-year period for actions to recover damages for injuries to a person, which includes many negligence-based personal injury and death claims (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

Practical point

“Negotiating with insurance” does not pause the deadline. If the two-year period expires, the defendant can raise the statute of limitations as a defense and seek dismissal (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

2) When does the Nevada two-year clock start?

In most accident cases, the limitations period is measured from the date the cause of action accrues, which is commonly the date of injury. Some cases involving latent injuries or special statutory schemes can involve different accrual concepts, but the default approach in everyday accident cases is to treat the event date as the start date (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

3) Medical malpractice has a different Nevada limitations statute

Medical malpractice, called “professional negligence” under Nevada’s healthcare statutes, has its own statute of limitations (NRS 41A.097).

NRS 41A.097 includes different timing rules depending on when the injury occurred, and it contains both:

  • an outside limit measured from the date of injury, and
  • a shorter discovery-based limit that can apply when the injury is discovered or reasonably should have been discovered (NRS 41A.097).

Nevada medical malpractice limitations litigation is heavily statute-driven, and Nevada case law addresses how the statute operates in practice, including discovery concepts in the medical malpractice context (Siragusa v. Brown, 114 Nev. 1384, 971 P.2d 801 (1998)).

4) Claims involving the State of Nevada may require claim presentment before suit

If the claim is against the State of Nevada (as opposed to a county or city), Nevada has a statutory claim presentment requirement to the State Board of Examiners as a prerequisite to maintaining the action (NRS 41.036).

This requirement can affect timeline strategy, because you may need to complete presentment steps while still protecting the underlying limitations period (NRS 41.036; NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

5) Tolling, minors and certain legal disabilities

Nevada provides tolling for certain legal disabilities. If the person entitled to bring an action is under 18 years of age or otherwise within a qualifying disability at the time the cause of action accrues, the limitations period can be tolled as provided by statute (NRS 11.250).

Tolling is not a “free pass,” it is statutory and fact-specific, and it should be analyzed early, especially where a guardian, parent, or representative is involved (NRS 11.250).

6) Statutes of repose, a different kind of time limit that can bar claims even if you file quickly after injury

A statute of limitations typically runs from accrual. A statute of repose is different, it can cut off claims after a set number of years tied to an event such as completion of construction, regardless of when an injury occurs.

Nevada has statutes of repose for certain claims related to deficiencies in the design, planning, supervision, or construction of improvements to real property, and those statutes can apply to bodily injury claims arising from those deficiencies (NRS 11.202; NRS 11.203; NRS 11.204).

This most commonly matters in:

  • injuries linked to building defects or failures,
  • unsafe stairs, railings, structural issues, or building systems,
  • construction-related injury scenarios.

7) Filing is not enough, service deadlines can make a timely case untimely in practice

Even if you file within the statute of limitations, you must still serve the defendant properly and on time under Nevada procedural rules. Nevada’s service rules impose a service deadline and failure to comply can result in dismissal (NRCP 4(e)(1)).

Nevada Supreme Court decisions emphasize that service deadlines are serious and that good cause issues can be litigated aggressively (Domino v. Gaughan, 103 Nev. 582, 747 P.2d 236 (1987); Dougan v. Gustaveson, 108 Nev. 517, 835 P.2d 795 (1992); Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 507, 998 P.2d 1190 (2000)).

Practical takeaway: If a case is dismissed for lack of timely service after the limitations period has run, refiling may be impossible, so “file early and serve correctly” is not just technical advice, it is claim-preservation advice (NRCP 4(e)(1); NRS 11.190(4)(e)).

8) A Nevada personal injury deadline checklist

If you want a simple Nevada framework:

  1. Identify the claim type, ordinary injury vs. professional negligence vs. government claim (NRS 11.190(4)(e); NRS 41A.097; NRS 41.036).
  2. Identify the accrual date and confirm whether any tolling applies (NRS 11.250).
  3. Calendar the filing deadline and protect it early (NRS 11.190(4)(e)).
  4. If suit is filed, serve promptly and correctly (NRCP 4(e)(1)).
  5. In construction-related injury cases, confirm whether a statute of repose might apply (NRS 11.202; NRS 11.203; NRS 11.204).

Nevada legal authorities cited

  • NRS 11.190(4)(e).
  • NRS 11.250.
  • NRS 11.202.
  • NRS 11.203.
  • NRS 11.204.
  • NRS 41.036.
  • NRS 41A.097.
  • NRCP 4(e)(1).
  • Domino v. Gaughan, 103 Nev. 582, 747 P.2d 236 (1987).
  • Dougan v. Gustaveson, 108 Nev. 517, 835 P.2d 795 (1992).
  • Scrimer v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 116 Nev. 507, 998 P.2d 1190 (2000).
  • Siragusa v. Brown, 114 Nev. 1384, 971 P.2d 801 (1998).

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