Nevada Comparative Negligence: How It Affects Your Injury Claim

Nevada comparative negligence is a legal concept that allows individuals to seek compensation for injuries even if they were partially at fault, provided their percentage of fault does not exceed 50%. This means that even if you share some responsibility for an accident, you may still be eligible to recover damages. If you’ve been a victim of negligent security, understanding this rule and how it applies to your case is critical to building a strong claim. At Cloward Trial Lawyers, we specialize in helping negligent security victims in Las Vegas protect their rights, navigate the legal system, and secure the compensation they deserve. Let us guide you through this challenging process and fight for justice on your behalf.

What Is Nevada Comparative Negligence?

Nevada follows a modified comparative negligence system, as outlined under NRS 41.141. This rule allows victims of negligence, such as negligent security, to recover damages as long as they are no more than 50% responsible for their injuries. The plaintiff’s percentage of fault reduces compensation. 

For instance, if you suffered $100,000 in damages due to inadequate security at a Las Vegas venue, but the court determined you were 20% at fault because you ignored a safety warning, your payout would be reduced to $80,000.

However, if a plaintiff’s fault level is over 50%, they are barred from recovering any damages. This legal framework affects personal injury claims significantly, especially in multi-party disputes or complex cases like negligent security.

How Is Fault Determined in a Comparative Negligence Case?

Determining fault in a Nevada comparative negligence case involves assigning a percentage of blame to everyone involved. Courts evaluate evidence such as security footage, witness statements, and expert testimony to establish these percentages. Each party’s degree of negligence is calculated separately, and damages are adjusted accordingly.

For example:

• If a venue fails to provide adequate lighting in a parking lot, leaving customers vulnerable to crime, it may bear a significant portion of liability for any resulting incidents or harm. 
• A plaintiff may hold partial responsibility if they knowingly ignored posted security warnings or engaged in risky behavior despite being aware of potential hazards.

According to Legal Clarity’s breakdown of Nevada’s modified comparative negligence laws, Nevada applies the doctrine of several liability. This means each defendant is only responsible for their share of damages. For instance, if multiple parties, such as a security agency and a property owner, are found liable for negligent security, their liability is apportioned individually.

Exceptions and Limitations to Nevada’s Comparative Negligence Law

There are some cases where Nevada’s comparative negligence rule does not apply. These exceptions include:

• Intentional Torts – Cases involving deliberate harm, such as assault and battery, are not governed by comparative negligence rules. Instead, defendants are held entirely responsible for their intentional actions, regardless of the victim’s behavior. 
• Product Liability – Injuries caused by defective products follow strict liability rules, meaning defendants can be held fully accountable regardless of the plaintiff’s actions or potential negligence. This ensures consumer protection from dangerous or faulty products. 
• Toxic Substances or Environmental Hazards – Liability is enforced comprehensively in these cases without reducing damages based on the victim’s responsibility. This approach ensures fairness and protects those harmed by large-scale negligence or environmental risks.

These limitations ensure the comparative negligence framework isn’t misapplied in rare but critical instances.

How Comparative Negligence Affects Your Compensation

The use of comparative negligence directly affects the level of compensation that you are most likely to get. Since your percentage of fault reduces the damages recoverable, the amount you get to claim is a factor in how strong your evidence and legal strategy are. For example, consider the following:

• If you were attacked in a casino parking garage due to a failure to have security cameras, yet you were texting and not watching where you were going, opposing parties may argue comparative fault on your part, which would reduce your award.
• Thorough documentation, including eyewitness accounts, medical records, and expert analysis of the incident, can significantly bolster your claim, strengthen your case, and help limit reductions to the compensation you deserve for your injuries.

Additionally, insurance companies are known to use comparative negligence as a tactic to lower payouts. If they assign you a higher fault percentage than justified, it could significantly diminish or eliminate your compensation. Having a skilled negligent security attorney ensures your fault percentage is appropriately represented.

Consult a Nevada Negligent Security Lawyer for Legal Guidance

Injured due to negligent security in Las Vegas? Contact Cloward Trial Lawyers at 702-605-5000 for trusted legal representation. We’re here to fight for the compensation you deserve. Schedule your free consultation today and take the first step toward recovery.