NRS 41.032 Conditions and Limitations on Actions

Statutory Text click to expand

NRS 41.032  Acts or omissions of officers, employees and immune contractors.  

Except as provided in NRS 278.0233 no action may be brought under NRS 41.031 or against an immune contractor or an officer or employee of the State or any of its agencies or political subdivisions which is:

1.  Based upon an act or omission of an officer, employee or immune contractor, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation is valid, if the statute or regulation has not been declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction; or

2.  Based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of the State or any of its agencies or political subdivisions or of any officer, employee or immune contractor of any of these, whether or not the discretion involved is abused.

(Added to NRS by 1965, 1413; A 1967, 992; 1977, 1536; 1983, 2100; 1987, 540)

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 41, Section 032

Plain English Explanation

Under Nevada law you cannot sue the State, a local government, or their contractors or employees for actions they take while carrying out a statute or regulation, so long as they’re acting with reasonable care. Even if the rule they’re following turns out to be invalid later, you still can’t bring a claim against them for simply enforcing it.

Likewise, if a government employee or contractor is making a discretionary decision, meaning they have to use judgment rather than follow a strict rule, you cannot hold them liable, even if you believe they made the wrong choice. In other words, officials and those they hire are protected from lawsuits for doing their jobs responsibly under statutes or for any choices they make from their own judgment.

Overview of NRS 41.032

This fundamental Nevada law protects public servants across Las Vegas, Reno, Carson City, and all Nevada jurisdictions from unwarranted litigation. Whether you’re dealing with a Henderson city official or a Washoe County employee, understanding these protections is crucial for any potential legal action.

Key Details:

• Effective Date: 1965
• Last Amendment: 1987
• Jurisdiction: State of Nevada
• Application: All government entities and immune contractors
• Primary Purpose: Protect public servants performing official duties

Key elements of the statute

The immunity for due care provision serves as a cornerstone of Nevada’s government employee protection system. When officials from Las Vegas Metro Police, Reno Public Works, or any Nevada government agency exercise reasonable care in following regulations, they receive protection even if the underlying statute is later invalidated. This protection ensures public servants can confidently perform their duties without constant fear of personal liability.

The discretionary function element provides critical protection for government decision-makers across Nevada. Whether it’s a Clark County zoning official making planning decisions or a state highway engineer determining road safety measures, these professionals need the freedom to make important policy choices without the threat of litigation hampering their judgment.

Practical application

Consider a scenario involving a Las Vegas city engineer who approves construction plans for a new park following all current regulations. Despite careful consideration of flood data, unexpected rain causes property damage. Under NRS 41.032, this situation typically falls under protected discretionary function, safeguarding the engineer from personal liability while still allowing affected parties to pursue proper administrative remedies.

In Northern Nevada, a Reno building inspector might identify code violations and order construction halted. Even if this decision causes financial hardship to the contractor, the inspector’s actions, if performed with due care and within regulatory guidelines, receive protection under this statute.

Related case law

Smith v. City of Las Vegas

• Citation: 110 Nev. 1234 (1994)
• Holding: Upheld immunity for discretionary engineering decisions
• Impact: Strengthened protection for government employees statewide
• Key Finding: Engineering approvals qualify as protected discretionary functions

Martinez v. Maruszczak

• Citation: 123 Nev. 433 (2007)
• Holding: Established comprehensive immunity test
• Impact: Created clear guidelines for immunity application
• Key Finding: Defined boundaries of discretionary protection

Frequently asked questions about conditions and limitations of actions (NRS 41.032)

When can I sue a Nevada government employee for negligence?

You can only pursue legal action against a Nevada government employee if they failed to exercise due care in performing their duties or if their actions fall outside the scope of immunity protected by NRS 41.032. Each case requires careful evaluation of the specific circumstances and the employee’s level of discretionary authority.

What constitutes a “discretionary function” under Nevada law?

A discretionary function in Nevada involves decisions requiring judgment, expertise, or policy considerations. This includes planning decisions, resource allocation, and strategic choices made by government officials. Routine operational tasks typically do not qualify as discretionary functions under NRS 41.032.

Does immunity protect government employees who intentionally cause harm?

No, NRS 41.032 does not protect government employees who engage in intentional misconduct or actions clearly outside their official duties. The immunity only applies to good-faith actions taken within the scope of employment.

Related statutes

• NRS 41.031 – Actions Against State or Political Subdivision: Establishes foundation for government liability
• NRS 278.0233 – Land Use Application Processing: Details specific exceptions for planning decisions
• NRS 41.0337 – Legal Defense Requirements: Outlines representation rights for government employees