If the crash truly wasn’t your fault, you still need to treat it like a case you must prove. Nevada law commonly turns fault allocation into a fact question, and insurers often look for arguments that shift a percentage of blame onto you to reduce what they pay.
This article is general information, not legal advice.
First: Understand how “not my fault” works under Nevada law
Nevada follows comparative negligence. If you are found partially at fault, your recovery is reduced by that percentage; if your fault is greater than the defendants’ combined fault, recovery is barred. (NRS 41.141).
Nevada courts have repeatedly emphasized that negligence and comparative negligence are generally jury questions. (Zugel v. Miller, 100 Nev. 525, 688 P.2d 310 (1984); Anderson v. Baltrusaitis, 113 Nev. 963, 944 P.2d 797 (1997); Shepard v. Harrison, 100 Nev. 178, 678 P.2d 670 (1984)).
Translation: your job after a “not-at-fault” crash is to (1) protect your health and (2) preserve the evidence that proves fault and damages.
What to do next (the practical + legal roadmap)
1) Get medical care and follow through (even if symptoms are delayed)
Insurance carriers regularly argue a delay means the injury was minor or unrelated. Also, Nevada recognizes the general mitigation principle: losses that could have been avoided by reasonable efforts are not recoverable. (Conner v. S. Nev. Paving, Inc., 103 Nev. 353, 741 P.2d 800 (1987); James Hardie Gypsum (Nev.), Inc. v. Inquipco, 112 Nev. 1397, 929 P.2d 903 (1996)).
2) Preserve and collect evidence like a lawsuit will be filed
Because fault disputes are often fact-driven and jury-decided in Nevada, preserve:
- Photos/video of scene and damage
- Witness names/numbers
- Dashcam files
- Vehicle inspection evidence (including “black box”/EDR issues where applicable)
Nevada courts allow remedies and sanctions when relevant evidence is lost or destroyed. (Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006); Reingold v. Wet ’N Wild Nev., Inc., 113 Nev. 967, 944 P.2d 800 (1997)).
3) If the other driver violated a safety statute, that can matter (negligence per se)
Nevada recognizes negligence per se when a defendant violates a statute designed to protect a class of persons the plaintiff belongs to, and the violation proximately causes injury (unless excused). (Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 669 P.2d 709 (1983)).
But Nevada also explains that statutory violation only establishes duty/breach in the right circumstances—i.e., the injured party must be within the statute’s protected class and the injury must be of the type the statute was designed to prevent. (Ashwood v. Clark County, 113 Nev. 80, 930 P.2d 740 (1997); Sagebrush Ltd. v. Carson City, 99 Nev. 204, 660 P.2d 1013 (1983)).
4) Get the crash report the right way
- If police investigated, the officer’s report prepared under NRS 484E.110 is not confidential. (NRS 484E.110).
- If police did not investigate at the scene, Nevada’s driver/owner reporting statute applies, with confidentiality and evidentiary limits built into the statute. (NRS 484E.070).
5) Notify insurance strategically (and know Nevada’s “not-at-fault premium” protections)
Nevada has consumer protections that restrict an insurer from refusing to issue/canceling/nonrenewing/increasing premiums in certain situations involving not-at-fault claims and related conduct. (NRS 687B.385).
Nevada administrative regulation restricts how insurers define “chargeable accidents.” (NAC 687B.850).
The Nevada Supreme Court has litigated what “at fault” means under these premium/chargeable-accident rules in the absence of a controlling regulation at the time, in the context of insurer premium practices. (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Comm’r of Ins., 114 Nev. 535, 958 P.2d 733 (1998)).
Practical tip: Report the crash promptly, but be careful about recorded statements and broad authorizations. Stick to facts; avoid guessing speeds/distances; do not minimize your symptoms.
6) Identify all applicable coverage early (UM/UIM may matter even if you weren’t at fault)
Even a “not-at-fault” crash can involve:
- Uninsured drivers
- Low policy limits
- Coverage disputes
Nevada requires UM/UIM coverage rules and options in motor vehicle policies. (NRS 687B.145).
Nevada case law addresses UM/UIM coverage disputes and interpretation issues in that area. (Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Daniel, 101 Nev. 433, 705 P.2d 156 (1985)).
7) Watch for medical-provider liens (and know what they can and can’t attach to)
Nevada has statutory lien frameworks that may apply to medical providers in some circumstances. (See generally NRS 108.590–108.660).
In a key Nevada Supreme Court decision involving an auto crash and uninsured motorist benefits, the Court held hospital lien statutes did not attach to first-party UM proceeds the way a lien might attach to third-party recoveries. (Washoe Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 112 Nev. 494, 915 P.2d 288 (1996)).
8) If there’s a related criminal case (DUI / hit-and-run), it can affect proof in the civil case
Nevada has a statute addressing the civil effect of certain criminal convictions. (NRS 41.133.) Nevada appellate decisions interpret how criminal convictions can be used and how they interact with civil issues like comparative negligence. (Langon v. Matamoros, 121 Nev. 142, 111 P.3d 1077 (2005); Cromer v. Wilson, 126 Nev. 106, 225 P.3d 788 (2010)).
9) Calendar the deadline now (statute of limitations)
Most Nevada personal injury claims have a two-year limitations period, and property-damage claims often have a different limitations period. The controlling statute is Nevada’s limitations statute. (NRS 11.190).
Why this roadmap works in Nevada
Because Nevada courts treat negligence, statutory-violation theories, and comparative fault as fact-intensive issues commonly reserved for juries, your post-crash actions should be aimed at preserving the facts. (Zugel v. Miller, 100 Nev. 525, 688 P.2d 310 (1984); Anderson v. Baltrusaitis, 113 Nev. 963, 944 P.2d 797 (1997); Harrington v. Syufy Enters., 113 Nev. 246, 931 P.2d 1378 (1997)).
And because Nevada recognizes consequences for evidence loss and general mitigation principles, early medical care and evidence preservation are not just practical—they align with how Nevada law evaluates proof and damages. (Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006); Reingold v. Wet ’N Wild Nev., Inc., 113 Nev. 967, 944 P.2d 800 (1997); Conner v. S. Nev. Paving, Inc., 103 Nev. 353, 741 P.2d 800 (1987).
Nevada Legal Authorities Cited
Statutes / Regulations
- NRS 11.190
- NRS 41.133
- NRS 41.141
- NRS 484E.070
- NRS 484E.110
- NRS 687B.145
- NRS 687B.385
- NAC 687B.850
- NRS 108.590–108.660
Nevada Case Law
- Anderson v. Baltrusaitis, 113 Nev. 963, 944 P.2d 797 (1997)
- Harrington v. Syufy Enters., 113 Nev. 246, 931 P.2d 1378 (1997)
- Zugel v. Miller, 100 Nev. 525, 688 P.2d 310 (1984)
- Shepard v. Harrison, 100 Nev. 178, 678 P.2d 670 (1984)
- Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 669 P.2d 709 (1983)
- Ashwood v. Clark County, 113 Nev. 80, 930 P.2d 740 (1997)
- Sagebrush Ltd. v. Carson City, 99 Nev. 204, 660 P.2d 1013 (1983)
- Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006)
- Reingold v. Wet ’N Wild Nev., Inc., 113 Nev. 967, 944 P.2d 800 (1997)
- Conner v. S. Nev. Paving, Inc., 103 Nev. 353, 741 P.2d 800 (1987)
- James Hardie Gypsum (Nev.), Inc. v. Inquipco, 112 Nev. 1397, 929 P.2d 903 (1996)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Comm’r of Ins., 114 Nev. 535, 958 P.2d 733 (1998)
- Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Daniel, 101 Nev. 433, 705 P.2d 156 (1985)
- Washoe Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 112 Nev. 494, 915 P.2d 288 (1996)
- Langon v. Matamoros, 121 Nev. 142, 111 P.3d 1077 (2005)
- Cromer v. Wilson, 126 Nev. 106, 225 P.3d 788 (2010)
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