Reno Personal Injury Lawyer - Automobile Accidents

Nevada Supreme Court Reviews Dram Shop Liability

Steve Klearman — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:29:17 GMT

The Nevada Supreme Court addressed the liability of a hotel for injuries occurring in an automobile accident after evicting intoxicated persons from the hotel premises in Rodriguez v. Primadonna Company, 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 45 (October 1, 2009).

In Rodriguez, 17 year old Fabian Santiago had been drinking with his two adult uncles, Manuel and Daniel Garibay, on hotel property where they were checked in as guests. They became disruptive, and hotel security intervened. The hotel security officers' requested that Fabian and his uncles leave the property. Hotel security accompanied the three men as they retrieved their belongings. Manuel told another guest that the three of them were going to their car in the parking lot to "sleep it off." Manuel had not intended to drive, as he did not have valid license and he believed he was too intoxicated. When the men were escorted to their vehicle, Manuel told Daniel he was sober enough to drive. Hotel security personnel informed the men, seated in their car, that they had to leave the hotel parking lot and exit hotel property. After leaving the property, Manuel rolled the vehicle while driving at approximately 80 miles per hour. 17 year old Fabian suffered extreme spinal injuries and, as a result, is quadriplegic.

In addressing the claim of negligent eviction, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the hotel owed an affirmative duty to ensure Fabian's safety after he was evicted from hotel property. The Court reviewed Nevada law regarding intoxicated patrons:

In Nevada, hotel proprietors have the statutory right to evict from the premises anyone who acts in a disorderly manner or who causes a public disturbance in or upon the premises. NRS 651.020.[1]

In Nevada, commercial liquor vendors, including hotel proprietors, cannot be held liable for damages related to any injuries caused by the intoxicated patron, which are sustained by either the intoxicated patron or a third party, including when the intoxicated patron is a minor.

Nevada subscribes to the rationale underlying the nonliability principle--that individuals, drunk or sober, are responsible for their torts.

The Court concluded that "when a hotel proprietor rightly evicts a disorderly, intoxicated patron, the hotel proprietor is not liable for any torts that an evicted patron commits after he or she is evicted that result in injury." The proprietor does not have the duty to prevent injuries caused by the intoxicated patron that are sustained either by the patron or by third parties after the eviction has been executed.

The Court did recognize that hotel proprietors do have a duty to act reasonably under the circumstances. The Court stated, however, that in accordance with the principles underlying Nevada's rejection of dram-shop liability, so long as a proprietor does not use unreasonable force in evicting a patron, the hotel proprietor is not required to consider a patron's level of intoxication in order to prevent speculative injuries that could occur off the proprietor's premises.

Thus, although the hotel may have known that Fabian's step-uncle was intoxicated and could not safely drive, the Court concluded, "as a matter of law, that Primadonna did not have the duty to arrange safer transportation, prevent an intoxicated driver from driving, or prevent Fabian, a passenger, from riding with a drunk driver."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Supreme Court Rejects Application of Anti-Stacking Rules for Concurrent Negligence

Steve Klearman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:16:39 GMT

In Delgado v. American Family Ins. Group, 125 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 44 (October 1, 2009), the Nevada Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether the passenger in an automobile who is injured by the concurrent negligence of the drivers in a two-car accident "may recover under the permissive driver's insurance policy both liability benefits based on the policyholder's negligence and underinsured motorist benefits based on the other driver's underinsured status."

The plaintiff passenger had made a claim against both at-fault drivers' insurance policies and recovered the liability limits under those policies. She then made a claim against the permissive driver's underinsured motorist policy, alleging that the at-fault policies did not cover the extent of her damages.

The Court rejected the application of the anti-stacking rules under the Nevada case law. In Nevada, once a passenger has recovered under the vehicle owner's liability policy--whether that policy is the permissive driver's policy or the passenger's own policy--the passenger may not also recover under the owner's uninsured/underinsured motorist policy, although the guest passenger may stack their own UM/UIM coverage with the benefits they receive from the owner's policy. Baker v. Criterion Insurance, 107 Nev. 25, 805 P.2d 599 (1991).

Distinguishing the anti-stacking situation, the Court concluded that "a passenger who is injured by two concurrently negligent drivers may recover from both the permissive driver's single insurance policy liability benefits based on the permissive driver's negligence and underinsured motorist benefits based on the other driver's underinsured status."

The Court clarified that the antistacking rule under Nevada law was not implicated by this case. Thus, a passenger whose injuries are attributable to two jointly negligent drivers and who exhausts the liability limits of the permissive driver's policy without satisfying his damages may seek recovery under the permissive driver's underinsured motorist policy based on the other driver's underinsured status.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

CAUTION! READ BEFORE SIGNING: Releasing Property Damage Claims

Steve Klearman — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:49:39 GMT

After an accident, a party will often accept a given sum of money for repairs in exchange for which he or she releases the right to sue for any and all present and future property damages arising out of that accident. If the indication to release liability for only property damage is not made clear, however, a party may also unknowingly sign away his or her right to sue for bodily injuries that may present themselves several weeks or months after an accident.

Common language in a Release of Property Damage includes a statement discharging a party from "any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, loss of service, expenses and compensation whatsoever, which the undersigned now has/have or which may hereafter accrue on account of or in any way growing out of any and all known and unknown, property damage and the consequences thereof resulting or to result from the accident, or event which occurred on or about [date of incident]."

Alone, however, this language leaves open the interpretation that the party is also signing away all liability for personal injury resulting from said incident.

There is an even greater risk of misinterpretation if the document includes further ambiguous language, such as indemnification from "any and all further liability, loss, damage, claims of subrogation and expense, arising because of any damages, and, if necessary, and, ... to satisfy on their behalf any judgment against them arising in any way out of aforesaid accident." Such language alone does not make it clear that the release is for property damage only.

A document purporting to release a party from property damage only should include a provision making such intention clear. For instance, the party can require acknowledgement that "this is a complete release of property damage only and it is understood and agreed that it does not constitute a release for any bodily injury resultant from this accident."

Without a clear indication that the release is for property damage only and not for bodily injury, titling a document "Release in Full of All Property Damage Claims" is not enough.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Hospital Liens Do Not Attach to UM Coverage in Nevada

Steve Klearman — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:40:00 GMT

Under Nevada law provides statutory authority for hospitals to place a lien on certain insurance proceeds. NRS 108.590 provides that "Whenever any person receives hospitalization on account of any injury, and he, or his personal representative after his death, claims damages from the person responsible for causing the injury, the hospital has a lien upon any sum awarded the injured person or his personal representative by judgment or obtained by a settlement or compromise to the extent of the amount due the hospital for the reasonable value of the hospitalization rendered before the date of judgment, settlement or compromise."

This statutory lien provision does not extend to underinsured motorist coverage, although in some states hospital liens do attach to UM coverage. Why not in Nevada?

The Nevada Supreme Court addressed the issue in Washoe Medical Center, Inc. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 112 Nev. 494 (1996). There, the Court articulated why hospital liens do not attach to first-party UM coverage.

The Court noted that the express language of the statute does not authorize attachment to UM coverage. NRS 108.590, quoted above, refers to "damages from the person responsible for causing the injury." An injured party's own insurance provider, through which received UM coverage, cannot be included as a person responsible for causing the injury. Thus, the Court concluded that "hospital liens do not attach unless an injured person claims damages from the third-party tortfeasor and the injured person is subsequently awarded damages pursuant to a judgment, settlement or compromise with the third-party tortfeasor or the third-party tortfeasor's insurance carrier."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Winter Safety Tips: Driving

Steve Klearman — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:00:00 GMT

Although the best practice is to avoid driving in hazardous winter weather, that does not always coincide with life's necessities. When driving in bad winter weather is unavoidable, allow the snow plows time to clear the roads and lay out salt and sand. Also, be sure to leave extra travel time. When conditions become icey, try to heed the following advice:

Driving safely on icey roads:

1. Decrease your speed and leave yourself plenty of room to stop. You should allow at least three times more space than usual between you and the car in front of you.

2. Brake gently to avoid skidding. If your wheels start to lock up, ease off the brake.

3. Turn on your lights to increase your visibility to other motorists.

4. Keep your lights and windshield clean.

5. Use low gears to keep traction, especially on hills.

6. Don't use cruise control or overdrive on icy roads.

7. Be especially careful on bridges, overpasses and infrequently traveled roads, which will freeze first. Even at temperatures above freezing, if the conditions are wet, you might encounter ice in shady areas or on exposed roadways like bridges.

8. Don't pass snow plows and sanding trucks. The drivers have limited visibility, and you're likely to find the road in front of them worse than the road behind.

9. Don't assume your vehicle can handle all conditions. Even four-wheel and front-wheel drive vehicles can encounter trouble on winter roads.

For more winter weather driving tips please go here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Fall and Night Driving Safety Tips

Steve Klearman — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:07:00 GMT

Helpful safety tips for fall and night driving from John Myre's SAFETY TIMES NEWSLETTER

Fall driving presents a variety of obstacles, and more drivers die from September through November than during the winter months of December through February. Slick roads, foggy mornings, and roaming wildlife are just some of the increased hazards. You must also contend with less daylight and morning and evening sun glare.

1. Clean and check your headlights regularly. Headlight dirt or misalignment can reduce the distance a driver can detect objects at night by about thirty percent.

2. Get your headlights aligned during a regular maintenance stop. If you can't get to a technician, the National Safety Council suggests the following steps:
-You need 35-40 feet of flat or constantly sloped driveway.
-Shine your low beams on a garage door two to three feet away.
-Outline the bright spots with a soft pencil or tape.
-Back the car about 25 feet from the door. The top of the low beams should shine no higher than the top of the marks on the door or lower than the center of the marked circle. If you have two headlights, the high beams are also aimed.
-If you have four headlights, aim the low beams first. Adjust the high beams until the center of the high is at the top of the low beam.

3. To minimize the glare problems at sunrise and sunset, use your visor, and wear sunglasses if necessary. Never wear sunglasses or tinted glasses at night. Also:

4. Be wary of drivers who are driving into a glare at your back. Give yourself plenty of room to come to a controlled stop.

5. Turn on your headlights whenever you wonder if it's dark enough to use headlights. It will help you see and be seen.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada law enforcement tightening seat beats

Steve Klearman — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:40:00 GMT

According to the Associated Press, Reno Police are making greater efforts to enforce the use of seat belts by actively seeking out violaters of Nevada's law requiring automobile passengers to buckle up.

KTVN Reno News reports:

Reno police and other Nevada law enforcement agencies are stepping up enforcement this month of seat belt laws.

Using state public safety grant money, Reno police will conduct saturation patrols looking for people who aren't buckled up or violate other traffic laws.

Authorities say using seat belts saves lives and reduces traffic accident injuries.

Seat belt violation fines can cost as much as $115 for a driver with passengers under the age of 18 who are not properly restrained.

Reno police issued 144 tickets for seat belt violations during a similar two-week campaign in May.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

"Traffic" Author Addresses Issues

Steve Klearman — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:07:00 GMT

The New York Times fielded questions for "Traffic" author Tom Vanderbilt.

Several of the answers were of particular relevance to Nevada drivers.

"Keep to the right, pass only on the left" laws

Q. After driving in Europe — mostly Germany — for a number of years, I'm convinced that most highway congestion problems in the United States are caused by failure to observe or enforce "keep to the right, pass only on left" laws. Traffic flows smoothly on autobahns because slow vehicles stay in the right lane. Faster drivers always have the right of way. It works beautifully! Your thoughts? — Fred Bothwell

A. The autobahn is tricky for direct comparison because a) there often is congestion; b) they have automated speed limits in some sections, so when traffic is forming all lanes are forced to slow; and c) there's a much different vehicle mix — fewer drivers in general, and a richer driver population — including no trucks on Sunday. The roads, owing to higher taxes, are typically better maintained and suffer less from construction delays.

There's also the obvious logical fallacy of worrying about "keep right" laws when the person concerned about such laws is violating the speed limit law by 15 m.p.h. or higher. Also, in heavy traffic, during which, incidentally, the left lane often clogs first, there's a social question here: because the highway handles the most vehicles per hour at 55-60 m.p.h., why should a lane be given over to fewer drivers who want to go faster when that negatively affects the remaining flow? (echoes of the H.O.V. lane here).

That said, even for drivers going within relative bands of the speed limit, but with slightly different speeds, there's a good logic to assigning some order to those speeds, in the same way there's a logic to doing this on things like people movers on airports (one of my pet peeves is the "road hogs" who treat it like a place to stand, blocking all the "lanes"). But in traffic there are always weird exceptions, like an exit or entrance on the left, etc. There's also the notion that someone is always going to want to go faster than someone else, so it raises the question of that one person's desire is really equivalent to the cost of all the other people having to make lane changes, raising the crash risk for every other driver.

55 m.p.h. Speed Limit in light of increasing gas prices

Q. In light of current gas prices and the likelihood of ongoing increases, do you think bringing back the 55 m.p.h. speed limit is a good idea? Do you think it feasible? — Stephen

A. As this debate could fill an entire book, I'll just say if you're interested in reducing fuel usage (and thus prices) and road casualties, it's a good idea. On the feasibility question, I think we'd need much, much higher fuel prices, speed governors or I.S.A. (intelligent speed adaption) technology in cars, or automated speed camera rollouts. Appealing to people's altruism or common sense (e.g., burning less fossil fuel) seems to fail as an abstract principle, in traffic as elsewhere.

"Anti-civility suit"

Q. Mr. Vanderbilt, do you believe, as I do, that as many people enter their vehicles they feel they're putting on a kind of "anti-civility suit" that somehow absolves them of all requirements to function as polite, humane participants in society? — Sixto Fernandez

A. By all means. Walt Disney got at this brilliantly in Motor Mania, the 1950 short that shows Goofy changing from "Mr. Walker" to "Mr. Wheeler." I think the reasons are varied, ranging from the sensorial isolation of being in a car to lingering class issues to anonymity and lack of feedback or consequences for acting rudely in traffic, to the very stress of driving itself, amongst other things. Of course, some people simply act in the car like they do off-road. It's been shown, for example, that people with more off-road criminal violations are more likely to commit on-road violations.

For more of Vanderbilt's discussion, in which he addresses roundabouts, geographical differences in honking behavior, ramp meters, and traffic light timing, check out the full question/answer session here.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

Nevada Supreme Court Reviews the Role of Biomechanical Engineers as Experts

Steve Klearman — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:37:17 GMT

In Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 48 (published July 24, 2008), the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the often dubious role of so-called “biomechanical engineers” as experts and concluded that (1) the district court below abused its discretion when it allowed a physician with an engineering background to testify as a biomechanical expert against a personal injury plaintiff because, among other reasons, the testimony did not assist the jury in understanding the evidence as the testimony was not based on a reliable methodology; (2) prejudice stemming from errors in the admission of evidence bearing upon a damage claim requires reversal when the error substantially affects the rights of the complaining party on appeal; and (3) such an error substantially affects those rights when the appellant establishes, based upon a sufficient appellate record, the reasonable probability of a different result in the absence of the error.

The Court’s entire decision can be read HERE.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Announces Ratings Updates

Steve Klearman — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:14:00 GMT

In an effort to provide consumers with more complete safety information and encourage car manufacturers to design safer cars, the U.S. Department of Transportation has revised its five star rating system.

The changes include reporting an overall safety rating, taking into account an automobile's performance in frontal, side, and rollover tests, instead of just reporting those results separately. A new side poll test will simulate an automobile collision with a tree.

For the first time, female crash test dummies will be tested, to represent women and larger children, and a new test for leg injuries will be implemented.

The updated system will include ratings for new technologies, such as electronic stability control, lane departure warning systems, and forward collision warning systems.

The changes in vehicle testing will be implemented beginning with 2010 model automobiles.

For more information, visit For more information, visit the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Klearman