Las Vegas Injury & Accident Attorney Blog

In 2009, 243 people died on Nevada roads according to the state traffic safety director–81 fewer deaths than in 2008.  Nevada State authorities attribute the lower accident related deaths to better law enforcement and more laws to enforce.   While certainly this may be the only thing that can be actually analyzed in a quantifiable measure, the drop and continued drop of deaths likely has many other factors besides new laws.   Nevada deaths peaked with 431 total deaths in 2006—up from 381 deaths in 2002—a sea saw of statistics.  The State’s rationale can’t be correct.  In all likelihood, we had more traffic laws legislated from 2002 to 2006 yet we had an increase of deaths; so how does one truly explain the numbers?  You can’t.   Here is why.

The other factors that must be considered are:  population increases/decreases, population of drivers increasing, types of cars driven from 2002 to 2009 (SUV’s, airbag equipped vehicles, etc.), the economy (causing less total drivers on the road), the number of new freeways e.g. I-215 (adding to less traffic collisions as a percentage of total cars-less risks as no center dividers and cross traffic issues), etc.  Nevada still has not implemented laws prohibiting people from texting while driving, nor have they implemented laws to stop cell phone use while driving —yet we have an increase of both of those activities, yet a drop in deaths; in addition, our speeding has increased.  Most speed limits are now 65 mph with highway speeds allowing for 75 mph in certain rural areas.  In California, the death rate dropped when they increased the speed limits in 1998 when compared to 2002 when they calculated an increase from 55 to 65 mph with more drivers on the road—confused?  You should be.  What is really saving lives?  More laws?  Not likely.  Who really knows except to think car safety has improved dramatically—and a little luck.  Perhaps we are just luckier this year.   If next year traffic deaths increase what will we say caused it?

Share and Enjoy

The Nevada Legislature has capped damages from Punitive damage awards limiting it to three times the amount of general damages per NRS 42.005. $300,000 cap for small verdicts (< $100K) and three times the verdict for those over $100K.  These do not, however, apply to Product’s Liability cases, nor insurance bad faith cases.   These are the most common cases a personal injury lawyer will  deal with, except perhaps the DUI driver Defendant where the conduct is so reckless it may amount to crossing the line of intentional conduct.

Given this, the only cap on product’s liability (e.g. Ford Motor, or Tire cases where there was malice or knowledge of the defect and a jury feels compelled to punish the manufacturer) is the Governing Cap developed by our very own US Supreme Court.  The US Supreme Court in a landmark decision BMW vs. Gore  outlined specific notions of fairness in a platform analysis for State Judges.  The platform looks at the following two prongs:  Reprehensibility & Ratio.  How bad was the conduct?  Did the malicious conduct affect safety? = Reprehensible Conduct and Ratio:  Are the two verdicts Compensatory and Punitive Damage awards have a common ratio so as to not deprive one of due process of law…property.  The guideline was basically a 10:1 ratio that they could not exceed when awarding a punitive damages awards.  Since this decision the Court has further narrowed the guidelines in decisions that we will not address here, but the point is clear that the Nevada Legislature has designed the guidelines for Product manufacturer’s to product safe products and do it with some integrity.   Below is the statute on Punitive damage guidelines for Nevada Cases:

NRS 42.005  Exemplary and punitive damages: In general; limitations on amount of award; determination in subsequent proceeding.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 42.007, in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied, the plaintiff, in addition to the compensatory damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant. Except as otherwise provided in this section or by specific statute, an award of exemplary or punitive damages made pursuant to this section may not exceed:

(a) Three times the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff if the amount of compensatory damages is $100,000 or more; or

(b) Three hundred thousand dollars if the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff is less than $100,000.

2.  The limitations on the amount of an award of exemplary or punitive damages prescribed in subsection 1 do not apply to an action brought against:

(a) A manufacturer, distributor or seller of a defective product;

(b) An insurer who acts in bad faith regarding its obligations to provide insurance coverage;

(c) A person for violating a state or federal law prohibiting discriminatory housing practices, if the law provides for a remedy of exemplary or punitive damages in excess of the limitations prescribed in subsection 1;

(d) A person for damages or an injury caused by the emission, disposal or spilling of a toxic, radioactive or hazardous material or waste; or

(e) A person for defamation.

3.  If punitive damages are claimed pursuant to this section, the trier of fact shall make a finding of whether such damages will be assessed. If such damages are to be assessed, a subsequent proceeding must be conducted before the same trier of fact to determine the amount of such damages to be assessed. The trier of fact shall make a finding of the amount to be assessed according to the provisions of this section. The findings required by this section, if made by a jury, must be made by special verdict along with any other required findings. The jury must not be instructed, or otherwise advised, of the limitations on the amount of an award of punitive damages prescribed in subsection 1.

4.  Evidence of the financial condition of the defendant is not admissible for the purpose of determining the amount of punitive damages to be assessed until the commencement of the subsequent proceeding to determine the amount of exemplary or punitive damages to be assessed.

5.  For the purposes of an action brought against an insurance company.

Share and Enjoy