Las Vegas Injury & Accident Attorney Blog

Two principle fundamentals in a winning a civil case are: 1. Having good facts, and 2. Having someone who can deliver those facts with an eloquent presentation in a logical and simple manner.  When someone claims they “have a great case”, that usually equates to ” I have great facts.”   And great facts are the key to a winning case.  If you have bad facts, then a good lawyer will argue the good law with hopes that the law is stronger than the less than favorable facts.

The perfect lawyer is hard to find, and likely, there is not one out there;  there are lawyers who attempt to be perfect however.  The undefeated lawyer is one who either does not take chances in life, has an ego problem, or is simply just too scared to lose;  quite frankly, I would notwant that undefeated lawyer anyway because he only takes cases with excellent facts which makes his job much easier.  Most often in law, I have found that persons in the greatest need of a good lawyer are those persons with decent or poor facts.  Facts are those things that occur in an incident, or items that can be inferred by logical deduction or human conclusion.

For example, if two cars collide in an intersection and both drivers claim they had a green light; there are no eye-witnesses, and both think the other ran a red light.  If both suffer injury, how does one prove either part was at fault for the vehicle accident?  It’s tough.  Under Nevada law, this scenario would likely end in a 50/50 jury verdict, as neither party could prove who did what.  Of course this analogy draws the inference that everything was equal in the facts:  that both drivers were equally credible, that neither driver had a criminal record involving deceit, the traffic light patterns did not indicate who may have been at fault, that skid marks did not play a role, that neither party was under the influence or intoxicated, that perception reaction time could not be calculated, that the visual perception of each driver was unobstructed, that neither driver was on his cell phone, that each driver was not in a hurry, etc, etc.

The point should be clear that one who is given simple, yet unconvincing facts, must do a proper investigation, be creative in his assumptions, and deliver those points effectively.  Good Facts and Good Lawyering are keys to success in a personal injury matter.

Share and Enjoy

Settlements are sometimes the best way to go.   Victims in accident cases are often challenged with difficult questions arising from whether to settle a personal injury case, or whether to take the case in front of a jury.  In Nevada, 8 jurors and 1 or 2 alternates will make up the jury panel.  Of those 8 persons, 6 must agree (75%) on the verdict.  The verdict is a culmination of past and future pain and suffering, medical expenses, and wage loss in a personal injury case.   The jury must determine three things:  fault (liability), damages (the amount of appropriate compensation), and legal causation (what percentage or apportionment of the injuries claimed in the case are actually related to accident

Sometimes the Defendant will agree they are liable for the accident, but may dispute the neck injuries relate to the subject car accident; they may argue the cervical neck injuries relate to a previous accident or high school football injury for example.  Given the decisions that must be made by the jury, the decision to settle a case prior to a jury trial eliminates undue risk.

When liability and causation are clear, a damages trial is a great way to go given their is not as much risk.  The case then shifts from a “can we win” strategy to a “how much is it worth?” case.  So, when evaluating whether a case should be settled the risk factors must be considered.  Las Vegas Personal injury attorneys must educate their clients on the risks of taking a case to trial given that losing can not only be devastating to the victim’s emotions, but also their pocketbook as a losing party may incur attorney fees and litigation costs to the non-prevailing party.   The accident attorneys at Benson & Bingham understand that litigation has risks and appropriately advise when and when not to take the case to trial.

Share and Enjoy

Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys should be aware of laws that will affect all automobiles, motorcycles, and bikes next year.

You can Pass on the Right!

Vehicles may now pass on the right—what?  That is correct, vehicles traveling may pass another vehicle on the right side of the road!  The caveat here is that obviously no parked cars must be in the way, and the pavement must be unobstructed.  Other terms of this law include no passing if there is a private driveway or intersection, and the passer must do so within 200 feet.

Accident Law

Tow trucks must use their amber lights when at an accident scene, and drivers must use caution around such lights.

Environmental Boost

First, in Assembly bill 163 Electric cars get a boost from the wave of green thinking.  This bill allows jurisdictions to enact laws allowing use of green vehicles to use a designated multi-passenger lane the HOV lane or car pool lane. This includes L.E.V.’s (Low Emission Vehicles) and golf carts.

Bikes need to Signal!

Also, AB 247 mandates bicycles must signal to turn unless they are in a turn lane.

Slow Down In Red Rock!

Finally, Red Rock National Conservatory and state route 159 traffic speeds will be reduced to accommodate the visitors to the area (e.g. make it safer for all those bicyclists who do the Red Rock Loop.)

If you have been cited for a traffic violation and need a ticket attorney, contact 24 Hour Ticket Power, Las Vegas’ Only 100% online ticket fighter!

Share and Enjoy

In Nevada the statute of limitations is two years on most tort actions.  There are, however, different rules that govern specific tort actions, and therefore a consultation with an experienced personal injury lawyer should always be had.   In Medical mal-practice actions, the limitations period has been reduced to 1 year.   Claims involving minor children is extended to one year after the child’s 18th birthday, but many reasons exist to prosecute the case before the time period expires.   Nevada law also has some exceptions to the statute of limitations periods as outlined by Nevada Law.  Please see below.  If you have a question regarding the time period in which you have to file a personal injury lawsuit, call Benson & Bingham today.

In a wrongful death case, the expiration of an adult heir’s SOL does not affect the distinct SOL afforded a minor heir.  See, Parker v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 88 Nev. 560, 502 P.2d 111 (Nev., 1972) – [quoting] Each heir has a separate relational interest in the life of the deceased, and damages are determined according to those separate interests. The mere fact that the judgment, if one is recovered, should be in a lump sum, Wells, Inc. v. Shoemake, 64 Nev. 57, 73, 177 P.2d 451 (1947), does not destroy separability since either the heirs, or the court upon proper application, may apportion the award.  It follows, therefore, that a defense, good against the claim of one heir, is not fatal to the others, any more than a settlement by one could bar the rights of all.  It is equally clear that the running of the statute of limitations is suspended during the period of their minority. NRS 11.250(1), (3).

“Insanity” tolling of the SOL per NRS 11.250 does not apply only to instances of “insanity” in the traditional sense, but also applies when someone has “an inability to manage one’s affairs.”  See, Butler ex rel. Biller v. Bayer, 168 P.3d 1055 (Nev., 2007) – [quoting] [FN] 23 … because Butler’s injuries rendered him “insane,” NRS 11.250 tolled the applicable statute of limitations, indicating that Butler’s claims against Smith were not time barred.  See, Smith By and Through Smith v. City of Reno, 580 F.Supp. 591, 592 (D.Nev.1984)  (interpreting “insane” as used in NRS 11.250 “to include a mental disability resulting in the inability to manage one’s affairs”).

An allegation of fraud or estoppel which arguably had the effect of causing plaintiff to refrain from filing suit is sufficient to raise a question of fact (for the jury) which defeats summary judgment on SOL grounds.  See, Harrison v. Rodriguez, 701 P.2d 1015, 101 Nev. 297 (Nev., 1985) – [quoting] Cynthia filed suit alleging negligence against Rodriguez on February 8, 1983.  Rodriguez moved for summary judgment on the ground that the statute of limitations had run.  The motion was granted.

Ronald Harrison, Cynthia’s father, alleged in his deposition that agents of Farmers made certain statements to him, to the effect that Farmers would pay “all medical bills.”  We assume these statements were in fact made, since “we must accept as true all evidence favorable to the party against whom the judgment was rendered.”  Stone v. Mission Bay Mortgage Co., 99 Nev. 802, 804, 672 P.2d 629, 630.  Additionally, “in evaluating the propriety of a summary judgment, the evidence will be reviewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was rendered.”  Hampton v. Washoe County, 99 Nev. 819, 822, 672 P.2d 640, 641 (1983).  The intent with which the statements were made is an issue of fact for the jury to resolve.  If the jury were to find that the statements were made with the intent to mislead Harrison as to the total amount Farmers would pay, or to cause him to refrain from filing suit, such an intent could give rise to an estoppel to assert the statute of limitations as a defense.  Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Rodriguez is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Rodriguez contends that since Harrison’s complaint showed on its face that the statute of limitations had run, Harrison is precluded from raising circumstances which might give rise to an estoppel, since such circumstances were not pleaded. We do not agree.

NRCP 8(d) states, in relevant part: “[A]verments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.”  Rodriguez’s answer sets up the statute of limitations as a defense.  No responsive pleading is required or permitted in answer to this defense; therefore, it is taken as denied or avoided.  Even though the running of the statutory period stands admitted in the summary judgment proceedings, issues of fact on estoppel and perhaps fraud remain.  Summary judgment is not proper under such a set of circumstances; consequently, the case is reversed and remanded.

Share and Enjoy