Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A Nevada resident was injured when a lithium-ion battery exploded in his pocket, causing severe burns. He had purchased the battery individually from a local vape shop, with no warnings or instructions provided. The battery in question was manufactured by a South Korean company and its American subsidiary, which design and sell these batteries as industrial components intended for integration into products such as power tools, not for standalone consumer use. Despite efforts by the manufacturer to prevent individual sales and warn against improper use—including sending cease-and-desist letters and posting warnings online—third-party retailers in the United States, including Nevada, sold the batteries individually.After the injury, the plaintiff filed a products liability suit in Nevada’s Eighth Judicial District Court against the manufacturer and its subsidiary. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that they did not sell or market individual batteries for standalone use in Nevada. The district court agreed, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his injuries arose out of or were related to the manufacturer’s contacts with Nevada, and dismissed the case. The dismissal was certified as final, and the plaintiff appealed.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case de novo. It held that, while the manufacturer purposefully availed itself of Nevada’s market by selling batteries as components for incorporation into end products, the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from a standalone battery acquired through a different, unauthorized stream of commerce. Because there was no evidence that the manufacturer placed individual battery cells into the Nevada consumer market, the court found no sufficient connection between the company’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s injury. The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Franceschi v. LG Chem, LTD." on Justia Law

A patient with multiple serious health conditions was taken to a hospital after being found unconscious by his minor daughter. He was treated briefly and discharged in the middle of the night, despite the absence of any adult at home to care for him. His wife, who was away at the time, had expressed concerns to the hospital staff about his ability to manage his condition at home, but her concerns were neither documented nor communicated to the attending physician. The patient was sent home alone via ride-share, and was later found by his wife in a severely deteriorated state. He died after subsequent hospitalization.The patient’s wife filed suit in the Second Judicial District Court of Nevada, alleging professional negligence as well as ordinary negligence, including a claim for negligent credentialing, hiring, training, supervision, and retention. The defendants moved to dismiss the ordinary negligence claim, arguing it was inseparable from professional negligence. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that some aspects—such as discharge decisions—were administrative and could support a claim for ordinary negligence. The district court also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration after new case law was issued.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case on a petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that claims relating to the discharge decision and alleged failures in credentialing, hiring, training, supervision, and retention were not independent of the medical relationship and therefore sounded in professional negligence, not ordinary negligence. The court ruled that such claims must be subsumed under the existing professional negligence claim and are subject to the requirements for professional negligence actions. The court directed the district court to vacate its prior order and subsume the challenged claim under the professional negligence claim. View "RENOWN REGIONAL MED. CENTER VS DIST. CT." on Justia Law

A correctional officer employed by a city for over a decade contracted COVID-19 after close contact with an infected coworker. He was hospitalized twice and diagnosed with COVID-19, pneumonia, and related lung issues. He filed a workers’ compensation claim for occupational lung disease, asserting that his illness was work-related. The insurer denied the claim, and the officer sought administrative review. His treating physician classified his COVID-19 infection as a disease of the lung.An appeals officer reviewed the case and affirmed the denial of benefits. The officer found that, while the claimant was entitled to a statutory presumption that his lung disease arose out of and in the course of employment due to his years of service, he failed to show that his lung disease was caused by exposure to heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas, or other noxious gases, as required by the relevant statute. The Eighth Judicial District Court reviewed the administrative decision and denied the officer’s petition for judicial review, concluding that the appeals officer’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not erroneous.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada reviewed the case. The court held that, under NRS 617.455, a claimant must satisfy both the requirement that the lung disease arose out of and in the course of employment (for which a conclusive presumption may apply) and the separate requirement that the disease was caused by exposure to heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas, or other noxious gases. The conclusive presumption does not eliminate the need to prove the exposure element. Because the claimant did not show his lung disease was caused by the required type of exposure, the court affirmed the denial of his claim. View "Holguin v. City of Henderson" on Justia Law

While incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in Clark County, Brian Caperonis was killed by other inmates. His father, William Joseph Caperonis, acting individually and as the special administrator of Brian’s estate, filed a civil complaint against the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) and several of its employees. The claims included civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, wrongful death, and various negligence claims related to Brian’s death.NDOC moved to dismiss the state law negligence claims, arguing that the estate had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243. NDOC asserted that, as the estate stands in the shoes of the decedent, it was required to file an administrative claim before pursuing litigation. William opposed, contending that the exhaustion requirement applied only to living inmates and not to the estates of deceased prisoners. The Eighth Judicial District Court denied NDOC’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plain language of the statutes and the relevant administrative regulations did not extend the exhaustion requirement to estates of deceased inmates.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed NDOC’s petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that the administrative exhaustion requirements in NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243 do not apply to the estate of a deceased prisoner. The court reasoned that the statutory language is limited to “a person who is or was” in NDOC custody and does not contemplate survival claims by estates. The court also found that the administrative regulations provide no mechanism for an estate to pursue such remedies. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied NDOC’s writ petition, affirming the district court’s decision. View "Department of Corrections v. District Court" on Justia Law

Rose, while 24 weeks pregnant with M.W., was traveling by Greyhound bus from Washington State to Las Vegas. During the journey, she boarded a bus in Redding, California, where another passenger, Asaandi Coleman, opened fire, injuring Rose. Rose was treated in California and later transferred to Las Vegas, where she suffered complications leading to an emergency C-section for M.W. M.W. has required constant medical care since birth. M.W.'s father filed a negligence lawsuit against Greyhound, alleging negligence and negligent hiring, training, retaining, supervising, and equipping.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over Greyhound, applying the Calder effects test, which is used for intentional torts. The court found that Greyhound did not purposefully direct its conduct toward Nevada, the cause of action did not arise from Greyhound's contacts with Nevada, and exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in applying the Calder effects test, as it only applies to intentional torts, and the claims against Greyhound were based on negligence. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal, determining that even under the correct test for specific personal jurisdiction, the district court lacked jurisdiction. Greyhound's contacts with Nevada were not sufficiently related to the negligence claims, which arose from events in California. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's order dismissing the action. View "WHITLEY VS. GREYHOUND LINES, INC." on Justia Law

Oscar Hernandez allegedly sustained injuries from a RIDGID-branded nail gun purchased from Home Depot. The nail gun, designed and manufactured by other companies, was marketed and sold by Home Depot under a trademark license agreement with Ridge Tool Company. Hernandez filed a complaint against Ridge Tool Company and Home Depot, asserting claims of strict liability, negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty of fitness. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.The respondents moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ridge Tool Company should not be held strictly liable as it only licensed the RIDGID trademark and did not participate in the design, manufacture, distribution, or sale of the nail gun. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment on all claims except the strict liability claim, noting the lack of controlling precedent in Nevada on whether a trademark licensor can be held strictly liable under such circumstances. The court certified the question to the Supreme Court of Nevada.The Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that Nevada does not impose strict products liability on an entity whose only involvement with a defective product is licensing its trademark for marketing purposes. The court adopted the rule set forth in section 14 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, which states that a trademark licensor is not subject to strict liability unless it substantially participates in the design, manufacture, or distribution of the product. The court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that a trademark licensor cannot be held strictly liable for damages caused by a defective product if its role is limited to licensing its trademark. View "HERNANDEZ VS. THE HOME DEPOT, INC." on Justia Law

David Bourne was diagnosed with chronic anxiety, major depressive disorder, and chronic low back pain by Dr. Zidrieck Valdes in 2015. Valdes prescribed Klonopin and an opioid. In 2019, Valdes informed Bourne of new CDC guidelines against concurrent use of these medications and switched Bourne to Buspar. Bourne experienced withdrawal symptoms and refused a referral to an in-patient drug treatment facility. Despite reporting stress and receiving a half-dose emergency prescription of Klonopin, Bourne showed no signs of withdrawal or suicidal ideation in subsequent visits. In November 2019, Bourne died by suicide, leaving a note blaming the medication changes.Bourne's wife and child sued Valdes for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in not tapering off Klonopin. Their expert, Dr. Donald A. Misch, supported this claim. Valdes moved for summary judgment, arguing that suicide is a superseding cause that precludes liability. The district court agreed, citing the "suicide rule" and granted summary judgment, stating Valdes had no control over Bourne.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that a patient's suicide does not automatically preclude liability for medical malpractice. The court emphasized that established medical malpractice principles should apply, and whether a medical provider's negligence led to a patient's suicide is a factual question for the jury. The court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based on the "suicide rule" and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bourne v. Valdes" on Justia Law

In 2009, a surgeon performed a shoulder replacement surgery on a patient, during which the patient suffered a fracture and subsequent nerve injury, resulting in permanent radial nerve palsy. The patient sued the surgeon and associated medical entities for professional negligence, claiming vicarious liability. The case went to trial twice; the first trial resulted in a verdict for the defendants, but the court granted a new trial due to juror misconduct. The second trial resulted in a verdict for the patient, awarding significant damages, which the court reduced according to statutory caps.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County oversaw the trials. After the second trial, the court reduced the pain and suffering damages to $350,000 pursuant to NRS 41A.035, awarded attorney fees, and capped expert witness costs. The defendants moved for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct, which the court denied. Both parties appealed various aspects of the court's decisions, including the application of the damages cap, the res ipsa loquitur instruction, and the award of attorney fees and costs.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in giving a res ipsa loquitur instruction despite expert testimony, as the relevant statutory amendments did not apply retroactively. The court affirmed the reduction of pain and suffering damages to $350,000, applying the statutory cap to both the surgeon and the medical entities. The court also upheld the denial of a new trial based on juror misconduct, finding no intentional concealment or prejudice.Regarding attorney fees, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's award but modified it to comply with NRS 7.095, capping the total recoverable amount. The court found no conflict between NRCP 68 and NRS 18.005 but remanded the case for further proceedings on expert witness fees, requiring a more detailed application of the Frazier factors. The judgment and order denying a new trial were affirmed, the attorney fees award was affirmed as modified, and the order retaxing costs was reversed in part. View "NEVINS VS. MARTYN" on Justia Law

Aletha Porcaro was admitted to The Heights of Summerlin, a skilled nursing facility, for rehabilitation after surgery. Upon her discharge, she contracted COVID-19 and died eight days later. Her daughter, Rachelle Crupi, filed a lawsuit against The Heights and its parent companies, alleging that they failed to implement effective COVID-19 safety protocols. The claims included negligence, wrongful death, and other related causes of action.The Heights removed the case to federal court, which remanded it back to state court. In state court, The Heights moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) and Nevada’s Emergency Directive 011 granted them immunity from Crupi’s claims. The district court dismissed the professional negligence claim but allowed the other claims to proceed.The Heights then petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for a writ of mandamus, seeking to dismiss the remaining claims based on the same immunity arguments. The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the petition and concluded that the PREP Act does not apply to a lack of action or failure to implement COVID-19 policies. The court also determined that Directive 011 does not grant immunity to health care facilities, as it applies to individual medical professionals, not facilities.The Supreme Court of Nevada denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that neither the PREP Act nor Directive 011 provided immunity to The Heights for the claims brought by Crupi. The court affirmed the district court’s decision to allow the remaining claims to proceed. View "The Heights of Summerlin, LLC v. District Court" on Justia Law

In 2021, Hal de Becker contracted COVID-19 and was treated with ivermectin by his personal physician. Hal was later admitted to Desert Springs Hospital Medical Center, where his ivermectin treatment was stopped without consent, and he was administered remdesivir. Hal's condition deteriorated, and he died shortly after being discharged. Hal's family sued the attending doctors and the hospital, alleging negligence, professional negligence, and wrongful death, claiming the doctors and hospital failed to obtain informed consent and made treatment decisions based on media narratives.The Eighth Judicial District Court dismissed the claims against the doctors and the hospital. The court found that the claims against the doctors were barred by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) and that the expert affidavit provided by the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of NRS 41A.071. The court also dismissed the claims against the hospital, finding them similarly barred by the PREP Act and that the claims were for professional negligence rather than ordinary negligence.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were for professional negligence and required an expert affidavit under NRS 41A.071. The court found the expert affidavit insufficient as to the doctors because it did not specify acts of negligence separately for each doctor. However, the affidavit was sufficient as to the hospital. Despite this, the court concluded that the PREP Act barred the claim against the hospital because it related to the administration of remdesivir, a covered countermeasure. Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. View "De Becker v. UHS of Delaware, Inc." on Justia Law