Nevada Personal Injury Lawyers

Explaining Comparative Negligence

When a personal injury case arises in Nevada, it's common for both parties to be at least partially at fault, even if the plaintiff in the action is less to blame than the defendant.  Unfortunately, many people who are wrongfully injured by someone else hesitate to seek the help of a Nevada personal injury lawyer because they mistakenly feel that their partial role in the incident that injured them would preclude them from filing a legal claim for damages.

Simply put, this is not an accurate assumption.  Nevada follows a legal doctrine known as comparative negligence, and this idea takes into account the fact that many personal injury cases involve situations in which both parties share at least part of the fault.  This doctrine allows those who should be able to recover damages to move forward and do so.  Below is a brief overview of this notion.

Comparative Negligence - Two Existing Theories

Every state in the country tends to follow its own set of rules and procedures when it comes to any legal claim, and personal injury law is no different.  There are two accepted theories of comparative negligence, and each is briefly described below:

1. "Pure" comparative negligence - Pure comparative negligence basically means that if an injured plaintiff brings a claim for personal injury against a defendant, he or she can recover damages even if the jury finds that the plaintiff was 99% at fault for the accident.  For instance, if a plaintiff files a claim for $100,000 and the jury finds that the defendant was 1% at fault, the plaintiff would recover $1,000 in damages.
2. Modified comparative negligence - Modified comparative negligence is different from the pure model in that the plaintiff who brings an action cannot be more than 50% at fault for the incident that led to the plaintiff's injuries.  If the plaintiff is less than 50% at fault, he or she will recover the portion of the damages sought in which the defendant was at fault.  If the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault, the plaintiff recovers nothing.

Nevada Comparative Negligence

Nevada follows the modified comparative negligence standard.  Therefore, the plaintiff must show that he or she was not more than 50% at fault in order to recover damages that are prorated to the portion of fault for which he or she is not responsible.  For example, if the same case seeking $100,000 in damages results in the jury finding that the plaintiff was 40% at fault, the plaintiff would recover $60,000.

This issue is a question of fact for a jury to decide in Nevada, and persuading a jury with strong evidence and convincing arguments is the role of an experienced and skilled Nevada personal injury lawyer.  If you have been injured by someone else, contact the Nevada personal injury attorneys at Jack Bernstein & Associates today to schedule a free initial consultation.