The state of Nevada utilizes a form of comparative negligence known as the 50% rule to establish fault and award damages in personal injury lawsuits. Under this approach, an injured plaintiff can recover compensation if they are found less than 50% responsible for the accident that caused their injuries. However, Nevada’s 50% rule bars plaintiffs from receiving any damages if they are deemed 50% or more at fault for the incident. This article will examine how Nevada’s comparative negligence system functions and the implications it has on determining liability and compensation in injury cases.
What is Comparative Negligence?
Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that considers the actions of all parties involved when deciding who is liable for damages in an accident. It compares the fault of the plaintiff to the fault of the defendant.
Most states now use some form of comparative negligence instead of the old contributory negligence rules. Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff’s compensation is reduced based on their share of fault rather than being completely barred from recovering damages. This differs from the previous contributory negligence system which prohibited plaintiffs from obtaining any compensation if they bore even 1% of the blame for an accident.
Under comparative negligence, even if the victim is partially at fault, they can still recover compensation proportional to the defendant’s negligence. For example, if the plaintiff is found 25% liable while the defendant is 75% liable, the plaintiff can recover 75% of the damages from the defendant.
Nevada’s 50% Bar Rule
Nevada specifically follows a 50% bar rule within its comparative negligence system. This means that a plaintiff is not able to recover any damages if they are found to be 50% or more at fault for the accident.
For instance, if a plaintiff is deemed 60% liable for a car crash, while the defendant is 40% liable, the plaintiff recovers nothing. Even though the defendant was negligent, the plaintiff bears greater fault, so they are completely barred from compensation.
However, if the plaintiff is only 30% liable, while the defendant is 70% negligent, the plaintiff can recover 70% of damages from the defendant. Since the plaintiff’s negligence is under 50%, they are eligible for proportional compensation.
Determining Fault Percentages
During personal injury trials, juries are tasked with determining what percentage of fault belongs to the plaintiff versus the defendant. To decide this, they look at the actions of each party and to what extent those actions caused or contributed to the accident and injuries.
Some factors juries may consider when establishing fault percentages include:
- Traffic violations by either driver, like speeding or running a red light
- Failure to obey traffic signs or signals
- Distracted driving behaviors, such as texting or eating while driving
- Impaired driving due to alcohol, drugs, or drowsiness
- Following too closely or unsafe lane changes
- Failure to wear a seatbelt
- Not exercising proper caution in hazardous conditions like rain or fog
Juries also examine whether one party had greater knowledge of dangers or ability to prevent the accident. For example, did one driver see the other veering into their lane but fail to honk or swerve? Or did hazardous road conditions exist that only one party knew about but failed to warn the other?
Evidence like police reports, witness statements, video footage, and expert testimony help juries analyze the negligence of both parties. Fault is then divided on a percentage basis between the plaintiff and defendant according to their contributory roles. As you can see, a Las Vegas car accident lawyer is crucial for putting across the best case.
How Damages Are Reduced
If the plaintiff is found partially negligent, their final compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault.
For example, if damages are assessed at $100,000, but the plaintiff is 20% liable, the plaintiff’s compensation is reduced by 20% to $80,000. The plaintiff only recovers damages proportional to the defendant’s negligence.
This reduction accounts for the role the plaintiff played in causing their own injuries. By being careless or engaging in dangerous actions, a plaintiff is not entitled to recover full damages if they share fault. The comparative negligence rule holds all parties accountable according to their responsibility.
Exceptions to Comparative Negligence
While comparative negligence allows for the consideration of mutual fault, there are exceptions where a plaintiff’s compensation cannot be reduced:
When the Plaintiff is Under 7 Years Old
Children under age 7 are legally incapable of negligence under Nevada law. A child cannot be assigned any percentage of fault. They are entitled to recover 100% of damages no matter their actions.
When the Defendant’s Actions Amount to Willful Misconduct
If a defendant engages in willful or wanton misconduct, like drunk driving, their liability cannot be diminished. Reducing damages in light of such extreme recklessness would undermine the goal of deterring egregious behavior.
When the Defendant Violates Certain Safety Statutes
If the defendant violates a safety statute designed to protect a class of people unable to protect themselves, they cannot reduce liability by arguing comparative negligence. For example, with scaffolding workers or child labor law violations.
How Fault Percentages Are Determined
Determining exact percentages of fault is not an exact science. There are no set formulas or guidelines. Juries use their discretion to assign percentages based on the specific details of each case. Some additional factors they may consider include:
- Which party’s actions initiated the sequence of events leading to the accident
- The extent to which one party had the last clear chance to avoid the accident
- Whether one party had greater knowledge of potential hazards and failed to warn others
- If one party created dangerous conditions that contributed to the accident
- If one party failed to take reasonable evasive actions prior to the accident
- The egregiousness of one party’s reckless behavior compared to more minor negligence by the other
Juries look at the overall circumstances to decide how much weight to give the negligent actions of each side when assigning percentages. Their goal is to reach a fair breakdown that accurately reflects the role each party played in the accident.
Consulting Experienced Nevada Attorneys
Determining comparative negligence and achieving maximum compensation in your personal injury claim can be complex. Contact the knowledgeable Nevada attorneys at Karns & Karns Personal Injury and Accident Attorneys for a free consultation on your case. With years of experience, we have the skill and resources to build a strong claim and secure a favorable outcome for you. Call now at 800-4THE-WIN (800-484-3946) to speak to a car accident lawyer Las Vegas NV today.
