Archive for: January, 2016

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision are:

  1. Employer had a duty to protect plaintiff from harm resulting from its employment of the tortfeasor;
  2. Employer breached that duty by hiring, retaining, failing to train, supervise, or discipline the tortfeasor;
  3. Proximate cause; and
  4. Causation and damages.

Nurse v. U.S., 226 F.3d 99 (9th Cir. 2000); Blanck v. Hager, 360 F. Supp. 2d 137, 157 (2005); Goodrich and Pennington Mortgage Fund, Inc. v. RJ Woolard, Inc., 120 Nev. 777 (2004);  Rockwell v. Sun Harbor Budget Suites, 112 Nev. 1217, 1226-27, 925 P.2d 175, 1181 (1996); Harrigan v. City of Reno, 86 Nev. 678, 475 P.2d 94 (Nev. 1970); Amen v. Mercede Cty. Title Co., 58 Cal. 2d 528 (1962); Rianda v. Sand Benito Title Guar. Co., 35 Cal. 2d 170 (1950).

 

See elements for other claims at the Nevada Law Library

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of negligence per se, or negligence for violation of a statute, are:

  1. Defendant had duty to exercise due care with respect to plaintiff as is defined by a statute or administrative regulation;
  2. Plaintiff was of the class of persons the statute or regulation was designed to protect;
  3. Defendant breached the duty by violating the statute or regulation, which constitutes negligence as a matter of law; and
  4. Causation and damages.

NEVADA JURY INSTRUCTIONS 4.12; NEVADA JURY INSTRUCTIONS 4.13; Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 98 P.3d 678, 680 (Nev. 2004); Scialabba v. Brandise Constr. Co., 12 Nev. 965, 968 (1996); Joynt v. California Hotel and Casino, 108 Nev. 539, 542 (1992); Sagebrush Ltd. v. Carson City, 99 Nev. 204, 208, 660 P.2d 1013, 1015 (1983); Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806 (1981); Bearden v. City of Boulder City, 89 Nev. 106, 507 P.2d 1034 (Nev. 1973); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286.

 

See elements for other claims at the Nevada Law Library

In Nevada, the elements for a civil claim of gross negligence are:

  1. Defendant owed a duty of care to plaintiff;
  2. Defendant breached that duty, failing to exercise even the slightest degree of care;
  3. Defendant engaged in an act or omission respecting legal duty of an aggravated character, or with willful, wanton misconduct;
  4. The breach was the legal cause of plaintiff’s injuries; and
  5. Plaintiff suffered Causation and damages.

Gross negligence is substantially and appreciably higher in magnitude and more culpable than ordinary negligence. Gross negligence is equivalent to the failure to exercise even a slight degree of care. It is materially more want of care than constitutes simple inadvertence. It is an act or omission respecting legal duty of an aggravated character, as distinguished from a mere failure to exercise ordinary care. It is very great negligence, or the absence of slight diligence, or the want of even scant care. NEVADA JURY INSTRUCTIONS 6.21; Bearden v. Boulder City, 89 Nev. 106, 507 P.2d 1034 (Nev. 1973).

 

See elements for other claims at the Nevada Law Library

In Nevada, if a plaintiff’s negligence is greater than sum of defendants’ negligence or the plaintiff acted with gross negligence, plaintiff can have no recovery; otherwise, damages are diminished in proportion to the plaintiff’s fault. This is known as comparative negligence.  NRS 41.141.