Nevada Law on “Strict liability” in Personal Injury Cases

Companies that make, distribute, or sell products are strictly liability for any injuries they cause. This means you do not need to prove the defendant was negligent.

Instead, all you have to do is demonstrate that

1. you were using the product appropriately when it injured you and
2. it was defective when it left the defendant’s possession.

The following chart compares strict liability to other common legal grounds in accident cases: negligence and negligence per se.

To help you better understand Nevada’s strict liability laws, our Nevada personal injury lawyers discuss:

• 1. What are the elements of a Nevada strict liability claim?
• 2. What if I misused the product?
• 3. Is there strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities in Nevada?

1. What are the elements of a Nevada strict liability claim?

Under Nevada state law, the elements of a claim for strict product liability are:

1. A consumer product was defective as the result of a product design, manufacturing or warning defect;
2. The defect existed when the product left the defendant’s possession;
3. The product was used in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant; and
4. The product defect was a cause of the damage or injury to you.²

Defendants who are strictly liable for your injuries may each be sued for 100% of the damages under Nevada’s joint and several liability laws.

If you can establish strict liability, you will be entitled to recover compensatory damages for:

• Medical bills,
• Property loss or damage,
• Lost wages and lost earning capacity,
• Pain and suffering, and
• Any other damages you have suffered.

You may also be able to recover under Nevada’s law on punitive damages.

2. What if I misused the product?

Misuse of a product will negate strict liability, IF the product was used in a way the defendant could not reasonably foresee. However, if the defendant should reasonably have foreseen that these types of products might be used in a way other than intended, such other use is not a misuse.³

Example: Kelly’s boss buys everyone at his construction firm a decorative glass crystal hammer as a present. Lisa, a salesperson who receives one of the hammers, is injured when the glass breaks after she uses it to hammer a nail. Whether she can win on a strict liability claim against the company depends on whether the jury thinks the company should reasonably have foreseen that someone would use a crystal hammer to hammer in a nail.

3. Is there strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities in Nevada?

Under Nevada law, one who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is liable for harm to another person or property that results from the activity, even if they exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm.⁴

It is not enough, however, that a dangerous substance is involved. The question is whether the defendant’s activity as a whole is ultra-hazardous. Otherwise, many defendants that produce or rely on dangerous substances would never be able to engage in a commercial or industrial activity.

Courts have recognized six factors to be taken into account when determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous:

1. The existence of a high risk of harm to people or property;
2. The likelihood that such harm will be great;
3. The inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care;
4. The extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
5. The inappropriateness of the activity to the place where it is carried on; and
6. The extent to which the activity’s value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.

Based on these factors, if a court determines that the defendant was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity, the defendant will be strictly liable for harm resulting from the activity.

Example: Dan is injured when driving by a mining operation that uses ANFO (ammonium nitrate, fuel oil) for blasting, and a large quantity of ammonium nitrate explodes. To prevail on a product liability claim, Dan can prove either that:

1. the mining company was negligent within Nevada’s negligence law, or
2. that its use of ammonium nitrate so close to the highway constituted an ultra-hazardous activity for which the company should be held strictly liable.

He may also have a product liability claim against the company that produced or sold the chemicals if he can prove that they were in some way defective and lacked product safety.

Additional Reading

For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:

• Strict Liability and the Purpose of Punishment – New Criminal Law Review.
• Two Advantages of the Negligence Rule Over Strict Liability when the Parties are Risk Averse – Review of Law & Economics.
• Torts – Strict Liability – Application to Automobile Manufacturers and Dealers and Dealer – DePaul Law Review.
• Just Strict Liability – Cardozo Law Review.
• Strict Liability for the Information Age – BYU Law Review.

---

Legal references: