A Brief Overview of Premises Liability Law in Nevada

Merielle Enriquez and Monica Dean

Premises liability law is a wide ranging area of law that all business proprietors should be knowledgeable about in order to protect their business patrons and to limit potential exposure in the event of an accident on their property. As in most jurisdictions, Nevada law recognizes that a proprietor has a duty to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in keeping its premises safe for its patrons. Basile v. Union Plaza Hotel & Casino, 887 P. 2d 273 (Nev. 1994). The following are examples of the various types of premises liability cases that a proprietor may encounter:

Falling Merchandise

Falling merchandise cases are becoming an increasingly prevalent area of premises liability law. Consider the case Scharrel v. Walmart, Inc. In this case, Plaintiff went to a local Wal-Mart store to purchase a power ice auger. The ice augers were located in boxes on top of a shelf that was approximately eight feet high. The Plaintiff requested the assistance of an employee, who stood on a ladder and attempted to remove one of the boxes from the shelf. The employee lost his balance and pulled down at least two boxes of ice augers as well as a display of ice chests. The Plaintiff was struck by the falling merchandise and is alleged to have suffered injuries including permanent brain damage and disk herniation. See Scharrel v. Walmart, Inc., 949 P. 2d 89 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

Notice of a hazardous condition is a critical issue in a premises liability case. It is a critical issue not just for falling merchandise cases, but for all types of premises liability cases. In the Walmart case, the Ninth Circuit upheld the admission of a Wal-Mart report of 17,000 falling merchandise incidents as evidence that the risk to customers posed by high stacking was foreseeable. Thus, Walmart had notice of this hazardous condition.

Slips and Falls

Possibly the most prevalent type of premises liability cases are slip and fall cases. Generally, if a slip and fall is caused by a substance or object on the floor, liability of a proprietor may be found if the condition was created by the proprietor or his agent. If the condition was created by a third-party, then liability will depend on whether the proprietor had actual or constructive notice of the existence of the condition.

Consider the case of Asmussen v. New Golden Hotel (392 P.2d 49 (Nev. 1964)) where the Plaintiff slipped and fell on a waxed floor of the hotel. The District Court held that a finding of liability upon the hotel was precluded as a matter of law, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed this decision.

In the Asmussen case, the Plaintiff was a guest at the hotel. She stepped from the elevator onto the hotel floor, slipped, and suffered injuries. Plaintiff alleged that the floor was "very heavily waxed" and that she slipped as a result of this condition. Plaintiff later admitted that this was the cause of the fall as related to her. The record did not show who waxed the floor, when the waxing was completed, nor the manner or method used in applying wax to the floor.

Since the record lacked evidence showing the material used to wax the floor or the manner of its application, the Asmussen Court held it would be impermissible to infer that an unbuffed waxed floor is dangerously slippery. To do so would effectively destroy the requirement that a claimant show either that the proprietor was negligent in the material used or in the manner of applying it.

Acts of Third-Parties

Injuries resulting from the criminal acts of third-parties commonly arise in premises liability cases. Generally, in Nevada, if a proprietor has knowledge of prior criminal acts on his premises, then the proprietor may be found liable to the injuries sustained to its patron. In Doud v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp., the Plaintiff was brutally attacked when he entered his motor home which was legally parked in the parking lot of the Las Vegas Hilton Hotel and Casino. Plaintiff filed a complaint that alleged the Hilton was negligent in failing to provide sufficient security. The Hilton was granted summary judgment by the district court on the contention that the robbery was unforeseeable and that the Hilton had no constructive knowledge of any danger to its guest from third-party assailants.

On appeal, however, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the Hilton's summary judgment concluding that there was a material issue of fact as to whether the Hilton was on Notice of the potential for violent crimes on its premises. In reversing the district court's position, the Supreme Court considered evidence that the parking lot had been the scene of at least one prior armed robbery, and that there were eight-five (85) crimes and arrests reported on the entire Hilton premises in the last two years. Furthermore, seventy-eight of those crimes occurred in the Hilton's various parking lots. See Doud v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp., 864 P. 2d 796 (Nev. 1993).

The cases discussed above provide just some examples of the various types of premises liability issues that proprietors may encounter in the event of an accident on their property. Notably, there are many different issues that may arise, and as such, it is important to consult with a knowledgeable attorney who routinely practices in this particular area of the law.

The attorneys at Kring & Chung are highly skilled in all aspects of premises liability law and also seasoned in all stages of litigation and various methods of alternative dispute resolution. We will utilize our significant experience and team of forensic consulting experts to aggressively defend your case. To learn more about the contents of this article or any area of premises liability law in Nevada, please contact Kring & Chung's Las Vegas office where our attorneys will be happy to assist you.