Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC supplied Pavestone, LLC with aggregate used to manufacture pavers. After customers complained about efflorescence on the pavers, Pavestone determined that sodium carbonate in Hi-Tech’s aggregate caused the issue. Pavestone sued Hi-Tech for negligence, products liability, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The district court ruled in favor of Pavestone on the breach of warranty and products liability claims.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County conducted a bench trial and found that Hi-Tech breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and was liable under products liability. Hi-Tech appealed the decision, arguing that it did not know of Pavestone’s specific need for sodium-free aggregate and that the economic loss doctrine barred Pavestone’s tort claims.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that Hi-Tech’s sale of aggregate carried an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because Hi-Tech had reason to know Pavestone’s intended use. The court adopted the reasoning of UCC § 2-315, which does not require proof of a seller’s actual knowledge if the seller had reason to know the product’s intended purpose. The court also held that Pavestone was excused from testing the aggregate for sodium carbonate because the defect was latent and not detectable through a simple examination.However, the court reversed the district court’s ruling on the products liability claim, holding that the economic loss doctrine precluded Pavestone’s noncontractual claims. The doctrine applies when the damage is to the product itself and not to other property. Pavestone did not provide sufficient evidence of damage to property other than the pavers. Thus, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s judgment on the warranty claim but reversed its judgment on the products liability claims. View "Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC v. Pavestone, LLC" on Justia Law

Steve Wynn, a prominent figure in Nevada gaming and politics, filed a defamation lawsuit against The Associated Press (AP) and its reporter, Regina Garcia Cano. The lawsuit stemmed from an article published by AP that reported on allegations of sexual assault against Wynn from the 1970s. The article was based on complaints obtained from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Wynn claimed the allegations were false and that AP published the article with actual malice.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County granted AP's special motion to dismiss under Nevada's anti-SLAPP statutes, which are designed to protect free speech and petitioning activities from meritless lawsuits. The district court found that the article was a good faith communication related to an issue of public concern and that Wynn failed to show a probability of prevailing on his defamation claim. Wynn appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that AP met its burden under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis by showing the article was a good faith communication on a matter of public interest. The court also clarified that under the second prong, a public figure plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably infer, by clear and convincing evidence, that the publication was made with actual malice. Wynn failed to meet this burden, as his evidence did not demonstrate that AP published the article with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court's order granting the special motion to dismiss. View "Wynn v. The Associated Press" on Justia Law

Retailers House of CB USA, LLC, and Chinese Laundry Lifestyle, LLC, leased commercial space at the Miracle Mile Shops, operated by PHWLV, LLC, which also runs the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino. On July 8, 2017, a fire-suppression pipe burst, causing significant water damage to the retailers' stores and inventory. The retailers sued PHWLV for negligence in maintaining the fire-suppression system.The Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County granted partial summary judgment in favor of the retailers on the elements of duty and breach, concluding that PHWLV had a duty to prevent items on its property from damaging others' property and had breached this duty. The case proceeded to a jury trial on causation and damages, resulting in a verdict awarding House of CB $3,133,755.56 and Chinese Laundry $411,581.41. The district court denied PHWLV's motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the jury verdict, also awarding attorney fees and prejudgment interest to House of CB.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its formulation of PHWLV's duty. The appropriate standard of care was the duty to use reasonable care in servicing and inspecting the fire-suppression system and responding to issues arising from failures within the system. The court reversed the district court's judgment on the jury verdict, vacated the post-judgment orders awarding attorney fees and prejudgment interest, and remanded the case for a new trial. The court also denied PHWLV's request to reassign the case to a different judicial department. View "PHWLV, LLC VS. HOUSE OF CB USA, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who worked at the Clark County Government Center (CCGC), alleged injuries from exposure to toxic chemicals. They claimed that toxic chemicals were released on Union Pacific property, which later became the CCGC site. After the CCGC opened in 1995, workers began experiencing illnesses and noticed black soot accumulating in workstations and air vents. Despite these concerns, Clark County assured workers that the property was safe. Plaintiffs argued that they could not have discovered the link between their illnesses and the toxic exposure until 2020, when experts established the connection.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County dismissed the plaintiffs' first amended complaint, ruling that the discovery rule did not apply to the two-year statute of limitations under NRS 11.190(4)(e). The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred because the statute did not explicitly reference discovery-rule tolling.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and reversed the lower court's decision. The court held that the discovery rule could apply to NRS 11.190(4)(e) despite the statute's lack of explicit language. The court emphasized that fairness and justice require that a claim should not accrue until the claimant is aware or should be aware of the claim through reasonable diligence. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had raised issues of fact regarding their awareness of the cause of action and the defendants' alleged concealment of information. Additionally, the court found that the district court erred by not considering equitable tolling. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "ADKINS VS. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY" on Justia Law

The case involves Somsak Limprasert, a patient diagnosed with COVID-19 and acute hypoxic respiratory failure, who was transferred to PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas, LLC, for rehabilitation and treatment. While at PAM, Limprasert, who was bedridden and unable to stand without support, was assisted by PAM's workers to rise from his bed. However, they unexpectedly let go of him while he was in a standing position, causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Limprasert filed a complaint against PAM, asserting claims for negligence and abuse of the vulnerable, and alternatively, under Nevada’s medical malpractice statutes. However, he failed to attach a supporting declaration from a medical expert to his complaint.The district court found that Limprasert’s claims were of professional negligence, requiring a supporting declaration from a medical expert. As Limprasert filed his complaint without the supporting declaration and the erratum was not filed at the same time as the complaint, the district court granted PAM’s motion to dismiss. Limprasert appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the decision, finding that the district court erred by dismissing Limprasert’s complaint. PAM petitioned the Supreme Court of Nevada for judicial review.The Supreme Court of Nevada determined that Limprasert’s claims were of professional negligence, requiring an affidavit under Nevada law. However, the court concluded that Limprasert’s expert declaration complied with the law, and the district court therefore erred by dismissing his complaint for noncompliance. The court reversed the dismissal of Limprasert’s professional negligence claims and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas, LLC" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a medical malpractice claim filed by Saeed Gohari, acting as the guardian ad litem for Nammi Gohari, a minor. Nammi was born prematurely in 2012 and developed irreversible brain damage, which the family attributed to professional negligence by the medical staff at facilities operated by Dignity Health. The malpractice claims were filed against Dignity Health and several individuals who provided medical care to Nammi's mother, Afsaneh Amin-Akbari, over a decade after Nammi's birth, on November 30, 2022.The case was initially brought before the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada. Dignity Health moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely under NRS 41A.097, which sets a limitation period for filing medical malpractice claims. However, Gohari argued that the complaint was still timely under NRS 41A.097(5) due to a pair of emergency directives issued by Governor Steve Sisolak during the COVID-19 pandemic, which tolled the limitations period. The district court agreed with Gohari, concluding that the directives tolled the limitations period for 122 days, making Gohari's complaint timely.The case was then brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada. Dignity Health filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking the court to vacate the district court order and direct the district court to dismiss the case because Gohari's complaint was untimely under NRS 41A.097(5) and its timeliness was not preserved by the directives. However, the Supreme Court denied the petition, concluding that the district court correctly applied the directives and that the law does not require dismissal of Gohari's complaint as untimely. The court found no support for Dignity Health's argument in the directives’ plain language and held that the directives tolled Gohari's limitations period for 122 days. View "Dignity Health v. District Court" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a personal injury claim filed by Laura Graham against International Property Holdings, LLC (IPH) and its sole member, Ovidiu Ene. Graham sustained injuries when she tripped and fell over a sprinkler box on IPH's property. During the trial, Graham moved to assert that Ene was the alter ego of IPH, meaning he should be held personally liable for the injuries she sustained on the company's property.The district court found that Ene, as the sole member and manager of IPH, was indeed the alter ego of the company. The court based its decision on several factors: Ene had his own personal gate code to the property and used it for personal reasons without paying IPH or the property management company; Ene's father maintained a garden and a chicken coop on the property; the property's insurance was in Ene's name; and Ene remained the guarantor on the mortgage loan for the property.The Supreme Court of Nevada, however, disagreed with the district court's findings. The court clarified that the alter ego analysis for a limited liability company is the same as the analysis applied to a corporation. The court found that substantial evidence did not support the district court's determination that Ene was the alter ego of IPH. The court concluded that while Ene did influence and govern IPH, there was not a unity of interest and ownership such that Ene and IPH were inseparable. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that recognizing IPH as a separate entity from Ene would sanction fraud or promote injustice. As a result, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ene v. Graham" on Justia Law

In a medical malpractice case before the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, the plaintiff, Kimberly D. Taylor, sued Dr. Keith Brill and Women’s Health Associates of Southern Nevada-Martin PLLC for professional negligence. Taylor alleged that Dr. Brill breached the standard of care by perforating her uterus and bowel during a surgical procedure and failed to inform her of these complications. The jury ruled in favor of Dr. Brill and denied all of Taylor’s claims.The Supreme Court of Nevada held that in a professional negligence action, evidence of informed consent and assumption of the risk are irrelevant and inadmissible when the plaintiff does not challenge consent. The court stated that even if a plaintiff gave informed consent, it would not vitiate the medical provider’s duty to provide treatment according to the ordinary standard of care. Furthermore, evidence of a procedure’s risks must still fall within Nevada's professional negligence statute, and a case-by-case analysis is required to determine whether the evidence should be excluded due to its potential to confuse the jury.The court also held that expert or physician testimony is not required to demonstrate the reasonableness of the billing amount of special damages. The court found that the district court had abused its discretion by prohibiting non-expert evidence demonstrating the reasonableness of the charges for medical treatment received by Taylor.Finally, the court ruled that evidence of insurance write-downs is not admissible under NRS 42.021(1), as it only contemplates evidence of actual benefits paid to the plaintiff by collateral sources.Based on these errors, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, including a new trial. View "Taylor v. Brill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Nevada ruled on a motion for disqualification of a supreme court justice in a medical malpractice action appeal. The appellant argued that Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct 2.11(A)(6)(d) required disqualification of Justice Douglas Herndon, who had been assigned the case when he was a district judge, but had not heard or decided any matters in the case before it was reassigned. The appellant argued that the rule required disqualification whenever a judge previously presided over a matter, regardless of the level of involvement.Justice Herndon and the respondents countered that he had seen no documents and performed no work on the case at the district court level, and therefore his impartiality could not be questioned. They argued that the Code of Judicial Conduct does not require disqualification in such circumstances, and that a judge has a general duty to hear and decide cases where disqualification is not required.After considering the language and context of the Code of Judicial Conduct, along with similar cases from other jurisdictions, the Supreme Court of Nevada held that to "preside" over a matter within the meaning of the disqualification rule, a judge must have exercised some control or authority over the matter in the lower court. Given that Justice Herndon had simply been administratively assigned the case and took no action during his assignment, he did not "preside" over the case in a way that mandated disqualification. The court therefore denied the motion for disqualification. View "Taylor v. Brill" on Justia Law

This case revolves around a lawsuit filed by Tiffiny Grace, legal guardian of E.G., against Sunrise Hospital and Nurse Cord Olsen for professional negligence. E.G. was born prematurely at Sunrise Hospital and suffered permanent developmental damage following a cardiac arrest in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The hospital's Patient Safety Committee investigated the incident, which Grace sought to examine during discovery. However, Sunrise Hospital objected, asserting that the information was privileged under the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (PSQIA) and Nevada law. The district court compelled the testimony, ruling that Sunrise Hospital had waived any privilege by allowing testimony on certain privileged topics.The Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, however, disagreed with the lower court's interpretation. It ruled that the PSQIA provides an absolute privilege for patient safety work products that is not subject to waiver. The court explained that this privilege aims to encourage healthcare providers to identify and learn from errors without fear of legal repercussions. The court concluded that the district court erred by interpreting the PSQIA to allow for waiver of privilege and by failing to determine whether the testimony sought constituted identifiable or non-identifiable patient safety work product. Therefore, the court granted a writ of prohibition, vacated the district court's order, and directed the lower court to reconsider Grace's motion to compel in light of its interpretation of the PSQIA. View "Sunrise Hospital v. Eighth Judicial District Court" on Justia Law