Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada held that GES, Inc. was not immune from a negligence action under the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act because GES and the injured worker's employer were not engaged in the same trade, business, profession, or occupation. The court further held that joint and several liability under Nevada's concerted-acts exception requires an agreement to engage in inherently dangerous conduct posing a substantial risk of harm, not merely concurrent negligence. The court reversed the joint-and-several-liability portion of the judgment, held GES severally liable for its 25 percent share of fault, and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether GES was immune from the Corbitts' negligence action under the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act because GES and Corbitt's employer, Legends, were statutory employers or co-employees under the normal work test.
- Whether GES and Powerline/VIP were jointly and severally liable under NRS 41.141(5)(d)'s concerted-acts exception based on their concurrent negligence in assembling and securing the exhibit truss.
- Whether the denial of GES's motion for summary judgment was reviewable on appeal from the final judgment.
Holdings
- GES was not immune from the Corbitts' negligence action because GES and Legends were engaged in different trades, businesses, professions, or occupations under the applicable normal work test.
- Mere concurrent negligence or an agreement to act jointly does not satisfy NRS 41.141(5)(d). Joint and several liability under the concerted-acts exception requires an agreement to engage in conduct that is inherently dangerous or poses a substantial risk of harm to others.
- Although an order denying summary judgment is not independently appealable, the propriety of that ruling may be reviewed in an appeal from the final judgment when the issue is properly raised.
Key quotations
“To be jointly and severally liable under NRS 41.141(5)(d)'s concert of action exception, the defendants must have agreed to engage in conduct that is inherently dangerous or poses a substantial risk of harm to others.” (21 P.3d at 15)
“Mere joint negligence, or an agreement to act jointly, does not suffice; such a construction of NRS 41.141(5)(d) would render meaningless the general rule of several liability.” (21 P.3d at 15)
Factual background
GES, a licensed Nevada electrical contractor and provider of convention drayage and assembly services, assembled a ground truss for a Powerline/VIP exhibit booth. GES temporarily secured the truss with nylon straps and informed Powerline/VIP representatives that the assembly was not finally secured and that the straps would not adequately stabilize it. Before the truss was secured, Legends employees proceeded with installation of cyberlights, causing the truss to collapse and seriously injure Jeff Corbitt, a Legends lighting technician.
Procedural history
The Corbitts sued GES, Powerline/VIP, and Skytop for negligence after a lighting truss collapsed and injured Jeff Corbitt. The district court denied GES summary judgment, and the jury found Skytop not liable while awarding more than $1.1 million against GES and Powerline/VIP, allocating 25 percent fault to GES and 65 percent to Powerline/VIP. After Powerline/VIP settled with the Corbitts, the district court entered joint and several liability against GES and Powerline/VIP. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed the joint-and-several-liability portion, dismissed as moot the appeal concerning the settlement order, and remanded for an amended judgment.
Remand instructions
Reverse the portion of the judgment imposing joint and several liability on GES and Powerline/VIP and remand for entry of an amended judgment holding GES severally liable for 25 percent of the damages. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.