Vega v. Eastern Courtyard Associates, 117 Nev. 436

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court held that violation of a building-code provision adopted by county ordinance may constitute negligence per se when the plaintiff belongs to the protected class and the injury is of the type the provision was intended to prevent. The court reversed a defense judgment and an attorney-fee award because the district court improperly refused to instruct the jury on negligence per se. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including determinations concerning the ramp provision’s applicability and causation.

Holdings

1. A violation of a building code provision adopted by local ordinance constitutes negligence per se if the violation is established, the injured person belongs to the class of persons the provision was intended to protect, and the injury is of the type the provision was intended to prevent.
2. Whether an injured person belongs to the class protected by the building-code provision and whether the injury is of the type the provision was intended to prevent are questions of law for the court.
3. The district court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on negligence per se because Vega presented sufficient evidence supporting that theory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether violation of a Uniform Building Code provision adopted by a county ordinance can constitute negligence per se.
2. Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on negligence per se and limiting the building-code violation to evidence of negligence.
3. Whether the district court's attorney-fee award under NRCP 68 should stand after reversal of the judgment.
4. Whether the district court's decision to bifurcate the trial should be reviewed.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded