Some Information on Negligence, or Why Victims Get Paid for Car Crash Injuries

Written by: Howard Robert Roitman

Las Vegas, NV | Avvo Rating: 9.9 | Client Reviews (3)

Add to list Print Send to a friend

To recover under a negligence theory, you must prove four elements: (1) that defendant owed him a duty of care; (2) that defendant breached this duty of care; (3) that the breach was the legal cause of plaintiff's injury; and (4) that the complainant suffered damage

In Nevada, proprietors owe their invitees a duty to use reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use

Negligence is never presumed but must be established by substantial evidence. Liability may be found only on proof that defendant had either actual or constructive notice thereof, and when positive evidence is not available to explain presence of such foreign substance, trier of fact is called upon to draw such reasonable inferences as are permitted from evidence of how you where injured.

slip and fall

In the "slip and fall" case involving a foreign substance upon a surface, if evidence is available to establish or permit reasonable inference that its presence was result of conduct by agents or employees of defendant, liability may be found . i.e. if you can show they put it there it is there fault esyer said then done. all persons in this society have an obligation to act reasonably and that an owner or occupier of land should be held to the general duty of reasonable care

reasonable inferences

Frequently, positive evidence is not available to explain the presence of such foreign substance, and the trier of fact is called upon to draw such reasonable inferences as are permitted from the evidence offered in this regard.liability may be found only on proof that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the stuff on the floor Annot. 61 A.L.R.2d 6, 69.

Duty to maintain

(1) reasonably foreseeable risk (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and (3) it must be 'fair, just and reasonable' to impose liability. However, these act as guidelines for the courts in establishing a duty of care; much of the principle is still at the discretion of judges.

Negligent maintenance

The duty to maintain may include, in appropriate circumstances, an obligation toupgrade" facilities that harbor foreseeable hazards by, for instance, installing guardrails.

Agents or employees of defendant

If evidence is available to establish or permit reasonable inference that its presence was result of conduct by agents or employees of defendant, liability may be found upon ordinary agency principles, respondeat superior is applicable, and notice is imputed to defendant,

How long hasirritent the been on the floor before your fall

In the "slip and fall" case, evidence of prior accidents is usually excluded where it relates to a temporary condition which might or might not exist from one day to the other unless there is proper showing that conditions surrounding prior occurrences have continued and persisted. irritent

duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe

Of course a proprietor owes his invited guests a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use-the duty of ordinary care. The experience of **50 mankind demands that the illusory standard of ordinary care be applied in a reasonable fashion, and courts generally have done so

'slip and fall' caused by litter, debris, or water

Distinction in the law between a 'slip and fall' caused by litter, debris, (Wagon Wheel v. Mavrogan, 78 Nev. 126, 369 P.2d 688; Eldorado Club v. Graff, 78 Nev. 507, 377 P.2d 174), water (Worth v. Reed, 79 Nev. 351, 384 P.2d 1017), or some other foreign substance upon a floor,

a slip and fall upon a waxed floo

It has long been established that the waxing of floors is compatible with the legal standard of ordinary care. Annot. 63 A.L.R.2d 591. An owner in treating a floor may use wax without incurring liability to one who slips and falls, unless he is negligent in the materials he uses or in the manner of applying them. Bonawitt v. Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent's Hospital, 43 Ohio App. 347, 182 N.E. 661. FN1

jury should be allowed to decide whether a waxed floor is dangerous

Where the record did not show that the wax had been negligently applied, the court held that the jury should have been allowed to decide whether a waxed floor was dangerous to a customer who was wearing wool socks .

thes things are almost always disishions for the jury in your case.

To get to a jury you will need an expert the judge will allow and a story of how the defdent got you hurt. After the trial where you present this infomation the jury gets to make a dishion on your case.

Disclaimer

This is advise of the most general sort about Nevada Law of not relie on it if you have an issue see a lawyer who can apply the law and facts to your case.