NRS 41.141 Comparative Negligence

NRS 41.141 Comparative negligence (Nevada definition)

NRS 41.141 When comparative negligence not bar to recovery; jury instructions; liability of multiple defendants.

1. In any action to recover damages for death or injury to persons or for injury to property in which comparative negligence is asserted as a defense, the comparative negligence of the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s decedent does not bar a recovery if that negligence was not greater than the negligence or gross negligence of the parties to the action against whom recovery is sought.
2. In those cases, the judge shall instruct the jury that:
   • (a) The plaintiff may not recover if the plaintiff’s comparative negligence or that of the plaintiff’s decedent is greater than the negligence of the defendant or the combined negligence of multiple defendants.
   • (b) If the jury determines the plaintiff is entitled to recover, it shall return:
     • (1) By general verdict the total amount of damages the plaintiff would be entitled to recover without regard to the plaintiff’s comparative negligence; and
     • (2) A special verdict indicating the percentage of negligence attributable to each party remaining in the action.
3. If a defendant in such an action settles with the plaintiff before the entry of judgment, the comparative negligence of that defendant and the amount of the settlement must not thereafter be admitted into evidence nor considered by the jury. The judge shall deduct the amount of the settlement from the net sum otherwise recoverable by the plaintiff pursuant to the general and special verdicts.
4. Where recovery is allowed against more than one defendant in such an action, except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, each defendant is severally liable to the plaintiff only for that portion of the judgment which represents the percentage of negligence attributable to that defendant.
5. This section does not affect the joint and several liability, if any, of the defendants in an action based upon:
   • (a) Strict liability;
   • (b) An intentional tort;
   • (c) The emission, disposal or spillage of a toxic or hazardous substance;
   • (d) The concerted acts of the defendants; or
   • (e) An injury to any person or property resulting from a product which is manufactured, distributed, sold or used in this State.
6. As used in this section:
   • (a) “Concerted acts of the defendants” does not include negligent acts committed by providers of health care while working together to provide treatment to a patient.
   • (b) “Provider of health care” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 629.031.

(Added to NRS by 1973, 1722; A 1979, 1356; 1987, 1697; 1989, 72)

Source:Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 41, Section 141. Accessed

Overview of NRS 41.141 (Modified Comparative Negligence)

Nevada’s comparative negligence statute (NRS 41.141) establishes the state’s modified comparative negligence system. Under this law, plaintiffs can recover damages even if they are partially at fault, as long as their negligence doesn’t exceed that of the defendant(s). This statute was first enacted in 1973 and last updated in 1989, applying to all personal injury cases in the State of Nevada.

The law significantly impacts personal injury cases by:

• Allowing partial recovery when plaintiff’s fault is 50% or less
• Establishing rules for multiple defendants
• Setting guidelines for jury instructions
• Defining how settlements affect remaining defendants

Key elements of NRS 41.141

Modified comparative negligence threshold

• Plaintiff can recover if their negligence is not greater than the defendants’
• Allows recovery up to 50% fault, but bars recovery at 51% or higher
• Applies to most personal injury cases in Nevada

The modified comparative negligence threshold is a fundamental element of NRS 41.141 that allows plaintiffs to recover damages when their negligence does not exceed that of the defendants. Under this system, plaintiffs can recover compensation as long as they are 50% or less at fault, but they are completely barred from recovery if they are found to be 51% or more responsible. This threshold principle applies broadly across Nevada personal injury cases, serving as a cornerstone of the state’s civil litigation system.

Jury instructions and verdict requirements

• Requires specific jury instructions and both general and special verdicts
• Ensures transparent allocation of fault
• Guides how damages are calculated and distributed

Nevada law mandates specific requirements for jury instructions and verdicts in comparative negligence cases. The statute requires courts to provide detailed jury instructions and obtain both general and special verdicts during proceedings. This comprehensive approach ensures that fault is allocated transparently among all parties involved. These requirements provide a structured framework that guides how damages are ultimately calculated and distributed among the parties.

Settlement considerations

• Prior settlements cannot be admitted as evidence
• Protects settling defendants and simplifies remaining litigation
• Judge deducts settlement amounts from final award

Settlement considerations form another crucial aspect of NRS 41.141, specifically addressing how prior settlements impact ongoing litigation. The statute explicitly prohibits the admission of prior settlements as evidence in subsequent proceedings. This prohibition serves to protect settling defendants and significantly simplifies the remaining litigation process. When settlements occur, judges are responsible for deducting these settlement amounts from the final award to prevent double recovery.

Several liability rule

• Each defendant typically only liable for their percentage of fault
• Limits individual defendant’s financial exposure
• Exceptions exist for specific cases like strict liability

The several liability rule establishes that each defendant is typically only responsible for paying damages proportionate to their percentage of fault. This fundamental principle effectively limits each defendant’s financial exposure to their specific share of responsibility in the case. However, the statute recognizes certain exceptions to this rule, particularly in cases involving strict liability and other specific circumstances where joint and several liability may still apply.

Practical application

Auto accident scenario

A typical auto accident scenario helps illustrate how Nevada’s comparative negligence system works in practice. Consider a collision where Driver A is found to be 40% at fault and Driver B is determined to be 60% at fault, with total damages assessed at $100,000. Under Nevada law, Driver A would be able to recover $60,000, which represents the total damages reduced by their percentage of fault. This scenario effectively demonstrates how partial fault directly impacts a plaintiff’s ability to recover damages while still allowing for substantial compensation when the other party bears greater responsibility.

Multiple defendant case

Multiple defendant cases further showcase the practical application of Nevada’s comparative negligence principles, particularly in premises liability situations. When three defendants are involved in a case, each is typically assigned a different percentage of fault based on their role in causing the injury. Following the several liability rule, each defendant is then responsible for paying only their proportionate share of the damages, unless specific exceptions apply. This approach exemplifies how the system fairly distributes liability among multiple parties while maintaining clear lines of financial responsibility.

Related case law

Café Moda v. Palma (2009)

• Case details:https://casetext.com/case/cafe-moda/case-details
• Clarified application of comparative negligence in premises liability
• Established framework for analyzing mixed comparative negligence claims

Banks v. Sunrise Hospital (2000)

• Case details:https://casetext.com/case/banks-v-sunrise-hospital/case-details
• Defined “concerted acts” exception for healthcare providers
• Limited joint liability for medical professionals

Frequently asked questions about NRS 41.141 comparative negligence in Nevada

Can I recover damages if I’m partially at fault in Nevada?

Yes, as long as you’re not more at fault than the defendant(s) (NRS 41.141(1))

How are damages calculated with multiple defendants?

Each defendant typically pays only their percentage of fault unless exceptions apply (NRS 41.141(4))

What happens if one defendant settles before trial?

The settlement amount is deducted from the final award, and the settling defendant’s negligence isn’t considered by the jury (NRS 41.141(3))

Related statutes

1. NRS 41.085 Wrongful Death
   • Often involves comparative negligence analysis
2. NRS 41.130 Liability for Personal Injury
   • Foundational statute for negligence claims
3. NRS 41.745 Employer Liability
   • Impacts comparative negligence in workplace injury cases