Personal injury lawyers handle civil cases where someone is harmed because another person or company failed to act with reasonable care, or committed a wrongful act. In Nevada, the basic concept is straightforward: when a person suffers a personal injury because of another’s wrongful act, neglect, or default, the wrongdoer can be liable for damages (NRS 41.130).
Below are the most common case types Nevada personal injury lawyers handle, along with the Nevada laws and cases that shape how those claims work in real life.
1) Auto accidents and other motor vehicle crashes
This is one of the largest categories of personal injury claims, including:
- Car crashes
- Truck collisions
- Motorcycle crashes
- Pedestrian and bicycle collisions
- Rideshare and commercial-vehicle crashes
Most motor-vehicle injury cases are negligence cases. Nevada law generally requires proof of duty, breach, legal causation, and damages (Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 180 P.3d 1172 (2008)). Nevada’s comparative fault rules also matter in almost every crash case, because the defense often argues the injured person shares blame (NRS 41.141).
Personal injury lawyers also frequently handle insurance issues tied to crashes, including uninsured and underinsured motorist claims (NRS 687B.145). If an insurer’s conduct crosses the line, some cases expand into insurance bad-faith litigation (Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 109 Nev. 789, 858 P.2d 380 (1993); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. 300, 212 P.3d 318 (2009)).
2) Slip-and-fall and other premises liability cases
These cases involve injuries caused by unsafe property conditions, such as:
- Slippery floors and spills
- Obstructed walkways and trip hazards
- Poor lighting
- Falling merchandise or objects
- Hazardous stairs, railings, or uneven surfaces
Nevada premises cases are still negligence cases at their core (Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 180 P.3d 1172 (2008)). Nevada has also made clear that “open and obvious” is not an automatic get-out-of-liability card. Whether a condition is open and obvious is part of the overall reasonableness analysis and comparative fault, not a categorical bar (Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012)).
In grocery-store and similar “self-service” settings, Nevada also recognizes doctrines addressing recurring hazards created by the way the business operates (Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 849 P.2d 320 (1993)).
3) Negligent security and third-party criminal acts on property
Some premises cases involve assaults, shootings, robberies, or other criminal acts occurring on business property like casinos, parking lots, bars, and apartment complexes. These cases often turn on whether the property owner owed a duty to take reasonable steps to protect patrons or invitees, and whether the criminal act was foreseeable under the circumstances (Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 221 P.3d 1276 (2009); Lee v. GNLV Corp., 117 Nev. 291, 22 P.3d 209 (2001)).
4) Product liability and defective products
Personal injury lawyers also handle cases where an unreasonably dangerous product causes injury, including:
- Defective auto parts (tires, airbags, brakes)
- Dangerous consumer products
- Unsafe medical devices and pharmaceuticals
- Defective tools, machinery, and industrial equipment
Nevada recognizes strict products liability, meaning liability can apply without proving traditional negligence if the plaintiff proves a defect and causation (Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966)). Nevada case law also addresses defect theories and how plaintiffs can prove causation and defect, depending on the product and the evidence available (Allison v. Merck & Co., 110 Nev. 762, 878 P.2d 948 (1994)).
5) Dog bites and animal attack cases
Nevada dog-bite cases often proceed under negligence principles, and liability questions can extend beyond the dog owner depending on the facts, including landlord or property-management issues.
For example, Nevada has addressed landlord-related duty and “assumption of duty” concepts in a dog-bite context, including when facts may support liability beyond mere ownership status (Harry v. Smith, 111 Nev. 528, 893 P.2d 372 (1995); Wright v. Schum, 105 Nev. 611, 781 P.2d 1142 (1989)).
6) Medical malpractice and other professional negligence
Personal injury lawyers frequently handle medical negligence cases involving:
- Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis
- Surgical mistakes
- Medication errors
- Failure to treat, monitor, or follow up
- Hospital negligence and system failures
Nevada medical malpractice is governed by Nevada’s professional negligence statutes (NRS 41A.015; NRS 41A.017). These cases also have strict procedural requirements, including an affidavit requirement in professional negligence actions (NRS 41A.071), and Nevada appellate decisions continue to shape how courts classify and process these claims (Szymborski v. Spring Mountain Treatment Ctr., 133 Nev. 638, 403 P.3d 1280 (2017); Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hosp. of Las Vegas, LLC, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 27, 2024)).
(Question #30 below goes much deeper on what “counts” as malpractice in Nevada.)
7) Wrongful death cases
When negligence or a wrongful act causes death, Nevada allows wrongful death actions by heirs and by the decedent’s personal representative (NRS 41.085). Wrongful death claims commonly arise from:
- Fatal car and truck crashes
- Unsafe property and negligent security
- Fatal medical negligence
- Dangerous products
Nevada case law also addresses who can sue, claim structure, and issues like preclusion when different heirs bring related claims (Alcantara v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 130 Nev. 252, 321 P.3d 912 (2014)).
8) Claims involving government entities
Some personal injury cases involve public entities, such as:
- Dangerous road design or maintenance
- Government-vehicle collisions
- Negligence at public buildings or schools
Nevada waives sovereign immunity in many circumstances, subject to statutory limits and immunities (NRS 41.031). Nevada also caps damages in many tort actions against the State and political subdivisions (NRS 41.035). Nevada courts analyze when immunities apply, including discretionary-act immunity issues (Martinez v. Maruszczak, 123 Nev. 433, 168 P.3d 720 (2007)).
9) Intentional torts and punitive damages cases
While many personal injury claims are negligence-based, personal injury lawyers also handle cases involving intentional wrongdoing, including:
- Assault and battery
- False imprisonment
- Other intentional misconduct causing injury
In appropriate cases, plaintiffs may seek punitive damages, which are governed by statute and subject to statutory limitations and requirements (NRS 42.005).
A note about deadlines
A major part of a personal injury lawyer’s job is spotting which statute of limitations applies, and acting before it expires. Many Nevada injury claims must be filed within two years (NRS 11.190(4)(e)). Other claim types, such as medical malpractice, can follow different limitation rules (NRS 41A.097).
Nevada legal authorities cited
Statutes
- NRS 11.190(4)(e)
- NRS 41.031
- NRS 41.035
- NRS 41.085
- NRS 41.130
- NRS 41.141
- NRS 41A.015
- NRS 41A.017
- NRS 41A.071
- NRS 42.005
- NRS 687B.145
Cases
- Alcantara v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 130 Nev. 252, 321 P.3d 912 (2014)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. 300, 212 P.3d 318 (2009)
- Allison v. Merck & Co., 110 Nev. 762, 878 P.2d 948 (1994)
- Cafe Moda, LLC v. Palma, 128 Nev. 890, 297 P.3d 176 (2012)
- Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012)
- Harry v. Smith, 111 Nev. 528, 893 P.2d 372 (1995)
- Lee v. GNLV Corp., 117 Nev. 291, 22 P.3d 209 (2001)
- Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hosp. of Las Vegas, LLC, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (June 27, 2024)
- Martinez v. Maruszczak, 123 Nev. 433, 168 P.3d 720 (2007)
- Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 109 Nev. 789, 858 P.2d 380 (1993)
- Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818, 221 P.3d 1276 (2009)
- Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, 82 Nev. 439, 420 P.2d 855 (1966)
- Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 849 P.2d 320 (1993)
- Szymborski v. Spring Mountain Treatment Ctr., 133 Nev. 638, 403 P.3d 1280 (2017)
- Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 180 P.3d 1172 (2008)
- Wright v. Schum, 105 Nev. 611, 781 P.2d 1142 (1989)
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