NRS 41.515 Liability of owner, lessee or occupant of premises to trespassers

NRS 41.515 Limitations on liability; exceptions; “trespasser” defined.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, an owner of any estate or interest in any premises, or a lessee or an occupant of any premises, owes no duty of care to a trespasser and is not liable to a trespasser for physical harm caused by the failure to exercise reasonable care to put the premises in a condition that is reasonably safe for the entry or use by a trespasser or to carry on activities on the premises so as not to endanger a trespasser.
An owner, lessee or occupant of premises may be subject to liability for harm to a trespasser if:
(a) The owner, lessee or occupant willfully or wantonly causes harm to the trespasser;
(b) The owner, lessee or occupant fails to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm to the trespasser after discovering the trespasser’s presence in a place of danger on the premises; or
(c) The trespasser is a child who is injured by an artificial condition on the premises and:
(1) The place where the condition exists is one on which the owner, lessee or occupant knows or has reason to know that a child is likely to trespass;
(2) The condition is one that the owner, lessee or occupant knows or has reason to know and that the owner, lessee or occupant realizes or should realize involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to a trespassing child;
(3) The trespassing child, because of his or her youth, does not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in the condition or coming within the area made dangerous by it;
(4) The utility to the owner, lessee or occupant of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to the trespassing child; and
(5) The owner, lessee or occupant fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or to otherwise protect the trespassing child from harm.
This section does not affect any immunity from or defenses to civil liability established by specific statute or available at common law to which an owner, lessee or occupant may be entitled.
As used in this section, “trespasser” means any person who enters or remains upon any premises owned, leased or occupied by another person without the express or implied consent of the owner, lessee or occupant of the premises.
(Added to NRS by 2015, 1526)

Source: Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 41, Section 515. Accessed

December 3, 2024

Overview of NRS 41.515

Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 41.515 provides critical guidance on property liability issues concerning trespassers, emphasizing the limited circumstances under which property owners are responsible for injuries. Understanding these nuances can help property owners manage their legal risks more effectively.

NRS 41.515 outlines the limited conditions under which property owners, lessees, or occupants owe a duty of care to trespassers. Generally, these parties are not liable for harm to trespassers unless specific exceptions apply. This statute primarily aims to describe the legal boundaries of liability in situations involving unauthorized entrants on the property.

The main exceptions to the general rule of non-liability include:

Intentional or reckless harm by the property possessor.
Failure to take reasonable steps to avert harm to a discovered trespasser in danger.
Specific conditions that pose dangers to trespassing children.

This statute, enacted in 2015, applies throughout the State of Nevada, including major cities like Las Vegas, Reno, and Henderson.

Key elements of NRS 41.515

The statute specifies certain conditions under which a property owner or possessor might still face liability for injuries to a trespasser:

Willful or Wanton Harm: Direct actions by the property possessor that cause harm to a trespasser.
Awareness of Danger: The need for property possessors to act once they are aware of a trespasser’s presence in a dangerous area.
Protection of Children: Enhanced duties to protect children from artificial conditions on the property that pose significant risks.

The statute also clarifies that it does not override other legal immunities or defenses that a property owner or possessor may have under specific statutes or common law.

Practical application

Injury from Neglected Hazard

Suppose a property owner in Reno fails to secure a well-known hazardous area on their property after noticing a trespasser near the hazard. If the trespasser is injured, the owner could be held liable for failing to take reasonable care to prevent the injury.

Child Injured by an Attractive Nuisance

If a child is injured by an attractive nuisance, such as an unfenced swimming pool in a Las Vegas suburb, on a property where the owner knows children often trespass, the owner might be liable. The law requires that the owner should have known about the danger and taken steps to mitigate it, especially since the danger poses a disproportionate risk compared to the utility of the condition.

A few notable Nevada cases have referenced or interpreted NRS 41.515:

Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2016): The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Costco, finding they did not owe a duty to a trespasser who was injured on their property under NRS 41.515. The court held none of the exceptions in the statute applied.
Plantz v. Greenband Enterprises (2020): The Nevada Court of Appeals, citing NRS 41.515, upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a trespasser against a property owner. The court reiterated the general rule that owners/occupiers do not owe trespassers a duty of care absent the specific statutory exceptions.
Hernandez v. Lucky Stores (2018): Applying NRS 41.515, the U.S. District Court for Nevada granted summary judgment to a store in a case brought by a trespasser alleging an unsafe condition on the property. The court found no evidence the store had knowledge of the trespasser’s presence as required to establish a duty under the statute.

These cases illustrate how Nevada courts have consistently interpreted NRS 41.515 to provide strong protections for property owners/occupiers against liability to trespassers, absent the limited exceptions outlined in the statute. The case law reinforces the high bar for trespassers to recover for injuries on another’s property in Nevada.

Frequently asked questions about liability of owner, lessee, or occupant of premises to trespassers (NRS 41.515)

What is the primary legal obligation of property owners regarding trespassers?

Property owners generally owe no duty of care to trespassers except under specific conditions where the trespasser’s safety is compromised, or the trespasser is a child in danger due to an artificial condition on the property.

How does this statute affect liability when a trespasser is injured?

This statute limits liability unless the owner engaged in willful misconduct, knew of the trespasser’s presence and did not mitigate known dangers, or failed to protect children from hazardous conditions.

What defines a trespasser under NRS 41.515?

A trespasser is defined as any person who enters or remains on premises without the owner’s, lessee’s, or occupant’s express or implied consent.

NRS 41.141 – Comparative Negligence
- This statute might affect claims under NRS 41.515 by allocating fault between the property owner and the trespasser.
NRS 202.500 – Trespassing Laws
- This section provides definitions and penalties for trespass, which can intersect with civil liability cases under NRS 41.515.
NRS 41.139 – Liability for Emergency Conditions
- This could provide additional context for understanding the responsibilities of property owners when trespassers are injured during emergencies.