Your Dedicated Legal Advocates

Proving a liability for harm through comparative negligence

On Behalf of | Jan 24, 2020 | Personal Injury |

When a serious or life-altering injury occurs during a visit to a Nevada establishment, holding its owner liable may require legal action. To succeed with a claim, a plaintiff must show substantial proof of negligence on the part of the company’s management or its employees.

Whether an individual slips, falls or otherwise suffers harm at a casino, retail location or amusement park, evidence of employee carelessness may prove essential to assign liability. Because the Silver State’s courts apply comparative negligence to each party in a lawsuit, a harmed individual should rarely expect a quick 100% liability determination for the property owner.

Property owner’s defense against damages

A property owner’s defense may raise the issue of a harmed individual’s inattentiveness or misuse of the premises. In the case of a fast-moving amusement ride at an indoor theme park that ejected a double-amputee rider from her seat, the premises owner may argue that the harmed individual acted recklessly by getting on the ride. The theme park may attempt to persuade the court to consider the rider’s partial liability for placing herself in a situation that could cause harm as a result of her condition.

As reported by KSNV-TV NBC’s News 3 Las Vegas, an investigation into the ride’s lap restraints took place to determine if the manufacturer was at fault. A defense by the theme park’s owner may include evidence that the manufacturer’s negligence in producing a safe ride contributed to the woman’s injuries.

Liability assigned to each party

A court may hold the theme park responsible if its employees created a dangerous condition through negligence or carelessness. There exists a duty of care to warn patrons of a known hazard. When employees fail to do so, a court may assign a premises owner a greater percentage of liability. The manufacturer may also find itself liable if the ride had a serious design flaw or failed to provide an adequate warning of its risk of personal injury.