If you are injured in a Las Vegas, Nevada, home or business, you may be able to bring a negligence lawsuit based on premises liability. Owners or managers must keep their property in a reasonably safe condition and warn others of hazards on the property that are not obvious.
In order to win under Nevada’s premises liability rules, you need to prove three things:
- There was a dangerous condition on the premises;
- The property owner or tenant knew (or should have known) about the dangerous condition; and
- The dangerous condition caused your injuries.
Some of the most common premises liability claims in Nevada involve slip-and-fall lawsuits and dangerous flooring lawsuits against Las Vegas hotels. Common hazards include the following:
If you win a premises liability lawsuit, you may be entitled to compensatory damages to pay for all your:
If the defendant’s lack of reasonable care towards you was particularly shocking, the court can also order that the defendant pay punitive damages. These can be much greater than compensatory damages.
Even if you were partially responsible for your injury, Nevada’s comparative negligence laws permit you to get paid still as long as the defendant was at least 50% at fault.
In this article, our Nevada personal injury attorneys discuss:
- 1. Proving Premises Liability
- 2. Dangerous Conditions
- 3. Invitees and Licensees
- 4. Hotel, Casino, and Resort Guests
- 5. Trespassers
- 6. Homeowners Insurance
- 7. Damages
- 8. Defenses
- Additional Reading
1. Proving Premises Liability
Suppose you are injured on another’s property in Nevada. In that case, you may be able to bring a negligence lawsuit against the property owner, tenant, or occupant under the theory of “premises liability.” If the case goes to trial, you (the plaintiff) would have to prove these elements:
- The defendant is the owner of the premises or is in control of the premises where the accident took place;
- You were on the premises at the defendant’s consent;
- A dangerous condition exists on the premises;
- Defendant caused, knew of, or should have known of the alleged dangerous condition; and
- The dangerous condition caused you to suffer injury and/or other damages.1
Note that you have the burden to prove negligence “by a preponderance of the evidence.” This means that it is more likely than not that the defendant’s breach of duty caused your injury.2
The statute of limitations in Nevada accident cases can be as short as two (2) years, so contact us right away to start working on your case.
Property owners may be liable for injuries that occurred on their premises due to their negligence.
2. Dangerous Conditions
Landowners and tenants are liable for injuries on their premises only if they knew — or should have known — about the dangerous condition that allegedly caused your injury. Whether a landowner or tenant should have known of a hazard turns on the facts of the case.
The more “open and obvious” a dangerous condition is, the more likely the landowner or tenant should be aware of it. If there are clear signs of dangerous hazards that the landlord or tenant chooses to ignore, the landlord or tenant could still be held liable because any reasonable person in their position would have investigated the matter.3
If a hazard is “open and obvious,” then it may be unnecessary to notify others of it or to warn against it. However, if the hazard is hidden, the landowner or tenant may have some duty to prevent any “foreseeable” injuries. Depending on the case, this duty may include either:
- notifying others,
- posting warning signs,
- cordoning off the dangerous area, and/or
- fixing the hazard
When determining a landowner or tenant’s duty to warn, courts look to what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances. Just some of the variables that courts would consider when determining if and how a landowner or tenant should warn others of a hazard are:
- the location of the hazard,
- the type of hazard, and
- the frequency of visitors.4
Acts of God vs. Man-Made Conditions
In general, property owners or tenants are not liable for injuries caused solely by environmental or weather conditions beyond their control (“acts of God”). However, they could be liable if they knew of a nature-made hazard and did nothing to warn others of it or prevent it, or if their actions contributed to or worsened the hazard.5
In general, property owners and tenants are liable for injuries caused by man-made conditions unless they were not aware — or had no reason to be aware — of the danger.6
3. Invitees and Licensees
Under current Nevada law, the courts’ primary consideration when determining premises liability is whether the landowner or tenant acted reasonably under the circumstances. Courts no longer put great weight upon whether you were technically an
- “invitee,” a
- “licensee”, or
- a “trespasser”.
However, whether you were invited on the premises – and in what capacity – plays into the “reasonableness” of the landowner or tenant’s actions. So it is still important to determine whether you qualify as an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser when crafting your personal injury lawsuits.7
Invitees
Invitees are people that the landowner or occupier welcomes onto the property for the landowner or occupier’s benefit. Examples of invitees are people who patronize a business, such as:
- shoppers,
- hotel guests, and
- restaurant guests
Historically, invitees are owed the highest duty of care. Because invitees are there for the property owner’s or tenant’s benefit, the property owner or tenant is expected to actively find potential hazards and swiftly address them and protect against them.
This is why the law requires businesses to:
- conduct regular inspections and
- abide by various safety codes.8
Licensees
Licensees are people that the landowner or occupier allows onto the property for the parties’ mutual benefit. A common example of licensees is social guests visiting a friend’s home.
Historically, licensees are owed an intermediate duty of care. Property owners and tenants still have to warn licensees of dangers, but they are not expected to regularly inspect their property for hazards like business owners are supposed to.9
Trespassers
Trespassers are people who enter the property without the landowner or occupier’s permission. Predictably, they are owed the lowest standard of care because they are intruders.
However, there are situations where even trespassers may win a premises liability lawsuit for their injuries. (Scroll down to section 5 for more information.)10
People who trip on a defective staircase may be able to sue the venue under premises liability.
4. Hotel, Casino and Resort Guests
Hotel, casino and resort guests are considered “invitees” under Nevada premises liability law. Therefore, they are entitled to the highest standard of care from property owners.
The owners of hotels, casinos, and resorts have a legal duty to take every reasonable measure to protect their guests from every foreseeable hazard. This duty of care typically includes:
- operating the facility to code
- conducting regular inspections to find potential problems
- fixing problems as soon as possible
- hiring adequate security and maintenance teams
- warning guests of hazards while they are being addressed (such as displaying “wet floor” signs)
In short, hotel owners have the duty not only to fix problems that come to their attention, but also to be on the lookout for problems and to prevent them if possible.11
Surveillance Video
Fortunately, hotels tend to be very well-surveilled by security cameras. The video footage from these cameras can prove invaluable for trying to prove that a hotel was liable for your injuries.
Hotels generally do not retain this footage for very long. So, you should contact an attorney as soon as possible to track down the footage and preserve it for a lawsuit. Learn more about suing for casino injuries.
5. Trespassers
Trespassers are people who enter another’s land without the consent of the landowner or tenant. Examples include:
- thieves,
- vandals,
- hikers who get lost, or
- people who go into a casino after the casino expressly told them they were not welcome
Ordinarily, landowners and tenants are not liable to trespassers for any injuries they suffer while trespassing on their land. Though landowners and occupiers may be liable to trespassers for their injuries in the following three circumstances:
- The owner/tenant deliberately hurt the trespasser,
- The owner/tenant knew the trespasser was on the premises and faced danger, or
- The trespasser was a child and faced danger from an artificial condition on the property12
6. Homeowners Insurance
When you sue an insured homeowner, the homeowner “tenders” (transfers) the lawsuit over to their insurance company. These types of lawsuits are called “third-party claims” because the insurance company is acting as the defendant.
If you win a personal injury case against an insured homeowner, the insurance company will pay you for your losses up to the limits of the homeowner’s coverage. The typical homeowners insurance policy limit is $200,000 for such damages as
- medical bills,
- pain and suffering, and
- lost income.
If your losses exceed the policy limit, then you may sue the homeowner for the difference. (Some homeowners insurance policies have “umbrella” provisions that pay out extra money in case the policy limit is insufficient.)
Homeowners insurance usually pays for damages caused by the homeowner’s negligence, such as not warning a house guest that the floor is slippery. Homeowners insurance usually does not cover damages caused by the homeowner’s intentional wrongful acts, such as punching a house guest.
7. Damages
“Damages” is the term for money that defendants owe you for causing your injuries. In the typical premises liability negligence lawsuit, you sue for compensatory damages to cover the costs of:
- Medical expenses: This may include everything from doctor’s bills and rehab to home health care and medications.
- Lost wages: This is money you did not earn because you were injured.
- Future economic costs (such as future lost wages): This is money you cannot earn because your injuries preclude you from working.
- Pain and suffering: This is meant to cover the physical and emotional stress that the injuries caused you.
Note that if the victim died as a result of their injuries, the victim’s family may be able to bring a wrongful death lawsuit against the property owner.
Also note that the majority of personal injury matters resolve out of court. Defendants are usually eager to avoid a trial, so premises liability lawyers can often negotiate a favorable settlement without much litigation.
Punitive Damages
If the court finds that the defendant’s behavior was particularly shocking, the court may order punitive damages as well. Whereas compensatory damages are meant to make you whole by compensating for losses, punitive damages are meant to punish the defendant.
Punitive damages also deter outside parties from engaging in the same negligent behavior.13
8. Defenses
Defendants in premises liability lawsuits are often insured, and these insurance companies hire law firms with the goal of paying out as little as possible.
Some of the defenses they use when fighting negligence claims in premises liability cases include:
- The hazard was open and obvious
- You failed to exercise due care
- An intervening cause was responsible for your injury
- The defendant was relieved of liability by an exculpatory clause
- Your injuries were caused by preexisting conditions
- You assumed the risk
Each of these is discussed in detail below.
Note that bars and other alcohol vendors have a special defense they raise against customers who sue for their injuries: If a customer’s accident is caused by their intoxication, then Nevada law relieves the bar/venue from liability.14
The Hazard Was Open and Obvious
Defendants in premises liability cases might argue you were at fault for your own injury because it was caused by something open and obvious. Historically, landowners and tenants have no duty to protect people on their property from obvious hazards that anyone would notice and avoid.
However, there is an exception to this rule.
The most important factor Nevada courts consider when assigning liability is whether the parties acted “reasonably.” In some instances, it is only reasonable for a landowner or occupier to protect against an otherwise open and obvious hazard.15
Example: The UNLV registrar is getting a new desk delivered. The delivery men leave it outside the office building while they are removing the old one. Since the desk is so big, the registrar assumes that students will walk around it. Though most students now are not looking in front of them but are looking down at their cell phones.
So if a pedestrian ends up walking into the desk because they were looking at a phone, a court might rule that this type of injury was foreseeable and that therefore the university was at least partly liable. (Learn more about suing for UNLV accidents.)
In today’s world where there are so many distractions vying for people’s attention, the “open and obvious” defense may not be as strong as a defense for property owners as it used to be.
You Failed to Exercise Due Care
Defendants in premises liability cases might argue that you were at fault for your own injury because you did not exercise due care. Even invitees are obligated to exercise due care and act reasonably when on another’s property.
However, if you are partly at fault for your injuries, you may still be able to recover.
Nevada follows the “modified comparative negligence rule.” This means that you can get money for your injuries if you were no more than 50% at fault.16 The judge would just reduce your damages award by the percentage of the accident attributable to you:
Example: Julia is running through a Las Vegas nightclub in stiletto heels while drunk. She slips on uneven flooring in the lobby and breaks her leg. She sustains $50,000 in damages. Julia brings a nightclub injury lawsuit.
The court finds that the nightclub was negligent for having bad flooring, but it also finds that Julia was 50% at fault because she should have known that running drunk and in heels was dangerous. Therefore, the court awards her 50% of the damages, which amounts to $25,000 (half of $50,000).
In spite of Nevada’s comparative fault rule, if you partly caused your injuries, you should still consider filing a premises liability suit. As long as your attorney can show you were not more at fault than the defendant, you should be entitled to money damages.
An Intervening Cause Was Responsible for Your Injury
A common defense to negligence claims is that the defendant did not cause your injury. Rather, an “intervening cause” that was beyond the defendant’s control caused it.17
Example: Josie is staying at the Bellagio. One night she jumps up and down on her bed, causing the bed to break and for her to fall and injure herself. Josie sues, and an investigator discovers that the bed was defective. However, Bellagio argues that Josie’s jumping was an intervening cause that resulted in her injuries.
If the court in the above example finds that Bellagio should have reasonably foreseen that people may jump on their bed, then it would probably reject Bellagio’s “intervening cause” defense.
The Defendant Was Relieved of Liability by an Exculpatory Clause
Exculpatory clauses (also called liability waivers) are clauses in contracts that excuse a premises owner/operator from fault if you sign the contract and then get injured there.18 However, it may be possible for you to get around exculpatory clauses:
Example: Mel signs up for a gym membership. He signs a contract relieving the gym from liability for any injuries he may incur there. While riding the elliptical machine, the television he is watching falls off its mount and hits him on the head. When Mel brings a gym injury personal injury lawsuit, the gym claims the liability waiver immunizes it from liability. Mel’s attorney argues that the wording of the contract protects the gym from only workout-related injuries, not all injuries.
If the court in the above example agrees with Mel’s attorney, then Mel should be able to recover for his injuries.
Your Injuries Were Caused by Preexisting Conditions
When you sue property owners/occupiers for your injuries, their defense attorneys may try to subpoena your medical records to search for “preexisting conditions.” These are illnesses and injuries that predate the accident and may have caused your injuries to be more drastic than they would have been otherwise.19
Example: Jane has a broken arm that is almost healed. While walking through a supermarket in her cast, she slips on a spill, and the bone fractures again. Jane sues the supermarket for not cleaning up the spill. The supermarket argues that Jane’s preexisting condition caused the fracture: Had Jane not already had a fracture, her injuries from falling would not have been so serious.
It does not matter in the above example that Jane is an “eggshell” plaintiff for having a preexisting condition. Under Nevada law, defendants are supposed to take plaintiffs as they are. Therefore, the supermarket is liable to the extent that the accident aggravated her preexisting condition.
You Assumed the Risk
If you get injured on someone else’s land, the landowner might claim you “assumed the risk” of being on their land. The landowner may also claim “secondary assumption of the risk,” a doctrine that relieves defendants of all liability when the victim intentionally took a known risk.
Assumption of the risk is not a popular defense in Nevada. To date, the state supreme court has not recognized this defense in slip-and-fall lawsuits.
Restaurants that serve contaminated food are liable to food poisoning victims under premises liability.
Additional Reading
For more in-depth information, our Las Vegas premises liability attorneys suggest you refer to these scholarly articles:
- What Constitutes a Reasonable Inspection? The Need for Expert Testimony in Premises Liability Litigation – Quinnipiac Law Review.
- Holmes, Doctrinal Evolution, and Premises Liability: A Perspective on Abolishing the Invitee-Licensee Distinction – Thurgood Marshall Law Review.
- The Law of Premises Liability in America: Its Past, Present, and Some Considerations for Its Future – Notre Dame Law Review.
- Premises Liability: The Disappearance of the Open and Obvious Doctrine – Missouri Law Review.
- A Fresh Look at Premises Liability as Affected by the Warranty of Habitability – Washington Law Review.
Also see our related articles on suing for concert accidents, Burning Man accidents, and Electric Daisy Carnival (EDC) accidents.
Legal References:
- Rolain v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Nevada, 2013) Case No. 2:11-CV-01900-KJD-PAL (While walking to Walmart, the victim’s foot got caught on broken asphalt, leading her to fall and sustain an injury. The court rejected Walmart’s claim that the hazard was “open and obvious.”); Hammerstein v. Jean Dev. West, 111 Nev. 1471, 907 P.2d 975 (1995) (“To recover under a negligence theory, the complainant must prove four elements: (1) that defendant owed him a duty of care; (2) that defendant breached this duty of care; (3) that the breach was the legal cause of plaintiff’s injury; and (4) that the complainant suffered damages.“); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm, § 51 (“[A] land possessor owes a duty of reasonable care to entrants on the land with regard to: (a) conduct by the land possessor that creates risks to entrants on the land; (b) artificial conditions on the land that pose risks to entrants on the land; (c) natural conditions on the land that pose risks to entrants on the land; and (d) other risks to entrants on the land when any of the affirmative duties . . . is applicable.”).
- See Deiss v. Southern Pac. Co. (1936) 53 P.2d 332, 56 Nev. 169.
- See Nevada Transfer and Warehouse Co. v. Peterson (1939) 60 Nev. 87, 89 P.2d 8 (“‘an owner or occupant of lands or buildings who knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, of their dangerous and unsafe condition and who invites others to enter upon the property owes to such invitees a duty to warn them of the danger, where the peril is hidden, latent, or concealed or the invitees are without knowledge thereof.'”). Galloway v. McDonalds Restaurants (1986) 102 Nev. 534, 728 P.2d 826 (“An owner or occupant of land must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit of a person invited on his premises for business purposes. An owner or occupant of land who knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care should know, of their dangerous and unsafe condition, and who invites others to enter upon the property, owes to such invitees a duty to warn them of the danger, where the peril is hidden, latent, or concealed, or the invitees are without knowledge thereof. On the other hand, if the dangerous and unsafe condition is obvious, ordinary care does not require warning from an owner or occupant of land.”).
- Id.
- See Lisser v. Kelly (1972) 88 Nev. 563, 502 P.2d 108.
- See Restatement of Torts: Physical and Emotional Harm, § 51.
- Moody v. Manny’s Auto Repair (1994) 110 Nev. 320, 333, 871 P.2d 935, 943 (“[D]eterminations of liability should primarily depend upon whether the owner or occupier of land acted reasonably under the circumstances.”); see Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2012) 128 Nev. 773, 291 P. 3d 150 (there is a duty of reasonable care “to all entrants on the land (except for flagrant trespassers)…landowners bear a general duty of reasonable care to all entrants, regardless of the open and obvious nature of dangerous conditions…the duty issue must be analyzed with regard to foreseeability and gravity of harm, and the feasibility and availability of alternative conduct that would have prevented the harm.”); FGA, Inc. v. Giglio (2012) 128 Nev. 271, 278 P.3d 490 (“[W]here an owner’s chosen mode of operation makes it reasonably foreseeable that a dangerous condition will occur, a store owner could be held liable for injuries to an invitee if the plaintiff proves that the store owner failed to take all reasonable precautions necessary to protect invitees from these foreseeable dangerous conditions.”).
- Hammerstein v. Jean Dev. West, supra. (“In Nevada, proprietors owe their invitees a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use.”); Twardowski v. Westward Ho Motels (1970) 86 Nev. 784, 476 P.2d 946 (“Furthermore, the owner or occupier of land has a duty to an invitee to inspect the premises to discover dangerous conditions not known to him and to “take reasonable precautions to protect the invitee from dangers which are foreseeable from the arrangement or use.”); see also First Transit, Inc. vs. Chernikoff (2019) 445 P.3d 1253 (“Nevada case law imposes a heightened duty of care on a common carrier toward its passengers…this heightened duty only applies to transportation-related risks and that, for non-transportation risks, the common carrier owes a duty of reasonable care. When the carrier is aware of a passenger’s disability, this duty of reasonable care includes providing safe transport that the circumstances reasonably require in light of the known disability.”).
- See, for example, Hammerstein v. Jean Dev. West, supra.
- NRS 41.515; NRS 41.1305.
- Twardowski v. Westward Ho Motels (1970) 86 Nev. 784, 476 P.2d 946 (“A landowner or possessor “must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit” of a person invited on his premises for business purposes. Hotels El Rancho v. Pray, 64 Nev. 591, at 606, 187 P.2d 568 (1947). In dealing with a hidden or latent defect as compared to an obvious danger, this court said in Worth v. Reed, 79 Nev. 351, 384 P.2d 1017 (1963), “If a peril is hidden, latent or concealed, ordinary care requires an owner, with actual or constructive knowledge of the peril, to warn the invited guest who is without such knowledge. . . . On the other hand, if the danger is ‘obvious,’ ordinary care does not require a warning from the owner because ‘obviousness’ serves the same purpose.” 79 Nev. at 354. Where the danger is obvious, a plaintiff is barred from recovery, Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel, 78 Nev. 182, 370 P.2d 682 (1962), but an invitee’s knowledge of a dangerous condition may not bar recovery if his mission justifies encounter of it.”).
- NRS 41.515 Limitations on liability; exceptions; “trespasser” defined. NRS 41.1393 Discharge of duty to warn trespasser against dangerous condition. In any case where there is a duty to warn a trespasser against a dangerous condition of the premises, that duty is discharged by painting, at intervals of not more than 200 feet on each side of the premises, upon or near the boundary, a post, structure or natural object with not less than 50 square inches of fluorescent orange paint or, if the post is a metal fence post, painting the entire post with such paint. NRS 41.515. NRS 200.120. NRS 41.515; NRS 41.1305. NRS 41.515. See, for example, Southern Nevada Pool Code.
- NRS 42.005.
- NRS 41.1305.
- Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2012) 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150.
- NRS 41.141; Humphries v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State (2012) 312 P.3d 484, 129 Nev. Adv. Rep. 85 (“As we recognized in Café Moda and Warmbrodt, however, the Legislature has supplanted the traditional, common-law functioning of joint and several liability by enacting NRS 41.141. Café Moda, 128 Nev. at ___, 272 P.3d at 139; Warmbrodt, 100 Nev. at 707-08, 692 P.2d at 1285-86. As currently enacted, NRS 41.141(1) and (2)(a) abolish contributory negligence and allow a plaintiff to recover damages if his comparative negligence is not greater than that of a defendant (if the plaintiff has sued only one defendant) or the combined negligence of multiple defendants (if the plaintiff has sued multiple defendants). NRS 41.141(4) alters joint and several liability by permitting apportionment of fault and providing for several liability amongst negligent defendants “[w]here recovery is allowed against more than one defendant.” NRS 41.141(5) specifies certain theories under which defendants will remain jointly and severally liable.”).
- Bower v. Harrah’s Laughlin, Inc. (2009) 125 Nev. 470, 215 P.3d 709 (“To determine whether an intervening cause is foreseeable, we consider several factors. These include whether (1) the intervention causes the kind of harm expected to result from the actor’s negligence, (2) the intervening event is normal or extraordinary in the circumstances, (3) the intervening source is independent or a normal result of the actor’s negligence, (4) the intervening act or omission is that of a third party, (5) the intervening act is a wrongful act of a third party that would subject him to liability, and (6) the culpability of the third person’s intervening act. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 442 (1965). When a third party commits an intentional tort or a crime, the act is a superseding cause, even when the negligent party created a situation affording the third party an opportunity to commit the tort or crime. Id. § 448. In such a scenario, the negligent party will only be liable if he knew or should have known at the time of the negligent conduct that he was creating such a situation and that a third party “might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or crime.” Id.“).
- Agricultural Aviation Eng’g Co. v. Board of Clark County Comm’rs (1990) 106 Nev. 396, 794 P.2d 710 (“‘It is settled that even though an exculpatory clause may be generally valid, additional standards must be met before it will be interpreted so as to relieve a person of liability that the law would otherwise impose. These standards are: (1) contracts providing for immunity from liability for negligence must be construed strictly since they are not favorite of the law . . .; (2) such contracts must spell out the intention of the party with the greatest particularity . . . and show the intent to release from liability beyond doubt by express stipulation and no inference from the words of general import can establish it . . . (3) such contracts must be construed with every intendment against the party who seeks immunity from liability . . . (4) the burden to establish immunity from liability is upon the party who asserts such immunity . . . [Citation omitted]”).
- State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Kelly (1983) 99 Nev. 774, 671 P.2d 29; Perez v. Las Vegas Medical Ctr. (1991) 107 Nev. 1, 805 P.2d 589; FGA, Inc. v. Giglio (2012) 128 Nev. 271, 283-284.