Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Torts (3)
- Administrative agency appeal (1)
- Amendment (1)
- Anti-SLAPP (1)
- Appeal (1)
-
- Assumption of the Risk (1)
- Civil Appeal (1)
- Discretionary Function Immunity (1)
- Enforcement Action (1)
- False Light (1)
- Future Damages (1)
- HEALTH LAW (1)
- IIED (1)
- INNKEEPER LIABILTY (1)
- Intrusion Upon Seclusion (1)
- Invasion of Privacy (1)
- MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (1)
- Medical (1)
- Medical Malpractice (1)
- NON-MEDICAL SERVICES (1)
- NRS 485 (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Physician Assistant (1)
- Proximate Cause (1)
- Refinanced Loans (1)
- Res Ipsa Loquitor (1)
- Statutory Interpretation (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- TORT LAW; STRICT LIABILITY DESIGN DEFECT (1)
- TORTS (1)
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Segovia V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 112 (Dec. 28, 2017), Alexis Wendl
Segovia V. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 112 (Dec. 28, 2017), Alexis Wendl
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) the 2015 amendment that added “physician assistant” to NRS 41A was not intended to clarify the previous statute’s original intent; and (2) The 2015 Legislature intended for the 2015 amendment that added “physician assistant” to NRS Chapter 41A to apply prospectively.
Peck V. Zipf, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 28, 2017), Jeff Chronister
Peck V. Zipf, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 28, 2017), Jeff Chronister
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Under NRS 41A.071, a plaintiff’s malpractice claim must be dismissed if the claim is not accompanied by an expert affidavit, but NRS 41A.100(1) states that the expert affidavit need not be submitted if the medical malpractice claim is argued under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Because the appellant failed to prove that the instrument left in his body was the result of surgery, the claim was properly dismissed in that the claim did not satisfy the elements to permit the statutory exception of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Likewise, NRS 41A.071 does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process …
State, Dep’T. Of Bus. And Indus., Fin. Inst. Div. V. Dollar Loan Ctr., L.L.C., 133 Nev Adv. Op. 103 (Dec. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Emily Meibert
State, Dep’T. Of Bus. And Indus., Fin. Inst. Div. V. Dollar Loan Ctr., L.L.C., 133 Nev Adv. Op. 103 (Dec. 26, 2017) (En Banc), Emily Meibert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that NRS 604A.408(2)(f) bars a licensee from bringing any type of enforcement action on a refinancing loan under the statute. This is because allowing for enforcement action would go against the legislative purpose of the statute.
Szymborski V. Spring Mtn. Treatment Ctr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Oct. 26, 2017), Paloma Guerrero
Szymborski V. Spring Mtn. Treatment Ctr., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Oct. 26, 2017), Paloma Guerrero
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined medical malpractice, and subsequent adherence to NRS 41A.071, involves a medical diagnosis, treatment, or judgment, and when the standards of care pertaining to the medical issue require explanation to the jury from a medical expert at trial. Therefore, Szymborski’s claims for negligence, malpractice, gross negligence, negligence per se, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision state claims for relief which were not based on a medical treatment or judgment and should not have been dismissed for failure to attach the NRS 41A.071 affidavit.
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. V. Payo, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Oct. 26, 2017), Alma Orozco
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. V. Payo, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Oct. 26, 2017), Alma Orozco
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Implied assumption of the risk does not apply when a student is required to participate in a physical education class because the doctrine’s “voluntariness” element is not satisfied. Discretionary-function immunity does not apply when cases allege inadequate supervision or instruction because such decisions, while discretionary, are not policy-based, as the discretionary-immunity test requires. Decisions are not entitled to discretionary-function immunity unless they entail governmental planning or policy formulation, which involves economic, social, and political considerations.
Humphries V. New York-New York Hotel & Casino, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Oct. 5, 2017), Emily Meibert
Humphries V. New York-New York Hotel & Casino, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Oct. 5, 2017), Emily Meibert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
An innkeeper is liable under NRS 651.015 if an injured patron can show that they suffered foreseeable harm; foreseeability is established when the innkeeper fails to exercise due care for the safety of its patrons or if the innkeeper had notice or knowledge of prior incidents of similar acts on the premises. Notice or knowledge of prior incidents of similar acts is a case-by-case analysis, and requires the district court consider similar wrongful acts in terms of the location of the attack, level of violence, and implicated security concerns.
Ford Motor Co. V. Trejo, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sept. 27, 2017), Jeff Chronister
Ford Motor Co. V. Trejo, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 68 (Sept. 27, 2017), Jeff Chronister
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court declined to adopt the risk-utility analysis. The consumer-expectation test is the appropriate standard for strict products liability claims in Nevada, and the risk-utility analysis is inappropriate because it inserts aspects of negligence into the test and unfairly burdens plaintiffs.
Franchise Tax Bd. V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Sept. 14, 2017), Carmen Gilbert
Franchise Tax Bd. V. Hyatt, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 57 (Sept. 14, 2017), Carmen Gilbert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court found that discretionary-function immunity does not apply to intentional bad-faith tort claims. The Court also expressly adopted the false light invasion of privacy right of action in order to fully protect privacy interests. The Court also adopted the sliding scale approach for evaluating IIED claims, holding that increased severity of conduct will require less evidence to prove emotional distress.
Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart
Delucchi V. Songer, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 29, 2017), Krystina Butchart
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
No abstract provided.
Pizarro-Ortega V. Cervantes-Lopez, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (June 22, 2017), Andrew Hart
Pizarro-Ortega V. Cervantes-Lopez, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (June 22, 2017), Andrew Hart
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court held that future medical expenses are a category of damages to which NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C)’s computation requirement applies, and that a plaintiff is not absolved of complying with NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C) simply because the plaintiff’s treating physician has indicated in medical records that future medical care is necessary.
Simmons V. Briones, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 9, Annie Avery
Simmons V. Briones, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 9, Annie Avery
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A judgment for penalty attorney fees and costs against a driver in an action that arises out of a motor vehicle accident is not a “judgment . . . upon a cause of action” arising out of the use of a motor vehicle such that its nonpayment may result in the suspension of driving privileges under NRS § 485.302.