Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed a summary judgment in favor of a casino in a premises liability action. The court held that the plaintiff had raised genuine issues of material fact regarding the casino's negligence and causation, and that his possible contributory negligence did not bar recovery under Nevada's comparative negligence doctrine.
Holdings
- Summary judgment is inappropriate when there are genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendant's negligence and causation, and when the plaintiff's own negligence does not bar recovery under comparative negligence.
Questions Presented
- Whether Joynt raised genuine issues of fact regarding the casino's negligence
- Whether Joynt's actions should be judged by a reasonableness standard
- Whether comparative negligence bars Joynt's negligence action
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (20)
- Tore, Ltd. v. Church, 105 Nev. 183, 772 P.2d 1281 (1989)(cited)
- Perez v. Las Vegas Medical Center, 107 Nev. 1, 805 P.2d 589 (1991)(cited)
- Shepard v. Harrison, 100 Nev. 178, 678 P.2d 670 (1984)(cited)
- Nehls v. Leonard, 97 Nev. 325, 630 P.2d 258 (1981)(cited)
- Sims v. General Telephone and Electric, 107 Nev. 516, 815 P.2d 151 (1991)(cited)
- Renaud v. 200 Convention Center, Ltd., 102 Nev. 500, 728 P.2d 445 (1986)(cited)
- O'Dell v. Martin, 101 Nev. 142, 696 P.2d 996 (1985)(cited)
- Berge v. Fredericks, 95 Nev. 183, 591 P.2d 246 (1979)(cited)
- Hennesy v. Tina Marie Homes, Inc., 388 P.2d 758 (Colo. 1963)(distinguished)
- Hill v. Gaertner, 92 N.W.2d 810 (Minn. 1958)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 20.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…