White & Wetherall

As reported in this morning’s paper (http://www.lvrj.com/news/twelve-caesars-guests-hurt-in-escalator-mishap-70134642.html), a late-night escalator malfunction at Caesars’ Palace sent 12 people to the hospital.  If warranted, those injured guests have two years from the date of this unfortunate incident in which to file suit against the hotel, the escalator manufacturer, or the maintenance company, whichever the case may be.  If warranted, those injured would be wise to obtain legal representation quickly, because Caesar’s Palace’s lawyers have no doubt already been to the scene and are sorting out how best to deflect fault for the incident.  In the meantime, those injured should be wary of attempts by Harrah’s/Caesar’s to “wine and dine” them in exchange for the signing of a benign-looking piece of paper called a “Release of Claims,” the signing of which would effectively extinguish their rights to seek compensation in court.

It does no good to spend millions of dollars on a lavish hotel if the most basic functions of the building are allowed to fall into disrepair.  As reported in the Review-Journal, Caesar’s parent company, Harrah’s, is no stranger to code violations throughout its many properties here in Las Vegas.  Escalator malfunctions such as the sudden, unexpected jerking experienced by the injured Caesar’s patrons typically suggest lapses in inspections, maintenance, upkeep, or all of the above, and those types of lapses (and the headlines they provoke) are bad for Las Vegas, and obviously worse for our unsuspecting visitors.  I hope none of them were injured enough to warrant a call to our office.

Each year, thousands of people around the country are seriously injured or killed as a result of harm from a defective product.  A rung on a ladder fails, a fan malfunctions, a pool drain disembowels a youngster, and the list of incidents goes on and on.  Many times these types of injuries are “embedded” in a case of another type.  For example, an auto accident may be the fault of one or other driver, but the extent of injury may also be due to crashworthiness defects in the cars involved.  A worker may fall from a construction site due in whole or in part to a defectively designed scaffolding. 

In Nevada, a plaintiff in a products liability case has the burden of proving that: 1) the product had a defect which rendered it unreasonably dangerous, 2) the defect existed at the time the product left the manufacturer, and 3) the defect caused the plaintiff’s injury.  See, Ginnis v. Mapes Hotel Corp., 86 Nev. 408, 470 P.2d 135 (1970).  A defective product is dangerous if it fails to perform in the manner reasonably to be expected in the light of its nature and intended function.  Id.

We are fortunate here in Nevada to have strong protections for consumers injured by defective products.  For example, pursuant to NRS 42.005, a punitive damages award in Nevada is typically limited to three times the amount of a compensatory damages awarded, but this punitive damages “cap” does not apply to “a manufacturer, distributor or seller of a defective product.”  See, NRS 42.005(2)(a).  Next, Nevada law provides for the imposition of joint and several liability upon defendants in cases involving “an injury to any person or property resulting from a product which is manufactured, distributed, sold or used in this State.”  See, NRS 41.141(5)(e).  What this means is that each defendant in a products liability case is legally responsible for the entire amount of the verdict against all liable defendants, regardless of each defendant’s percentage of fault.  The imposition of joint and several liability upon products manufacturers sued in Nevada puts greater pressure on them (than would otherwise exist) to meaningfully consider settlement in cases where they have arguable responsibility to any extent.

So why is it that we have these consumer-friendly rules in products liability cases?  The answer is rooted in the public policy of the State of Nevada, as interpreted by our Nevada Supreme Court.  In Allison v. Merck and Co., Inc., 110 Nev. 762, 878 P.2d 948 (1994), a case involving catastrophic injury to a child following a vaccination, the Nevada Supreme Court summed it up as follows: 

The public policy considerations that support holding the defendants liable in this case (if plaintiffs can prove that the vaccine caused his injuries) were put well by Professor Prosser in the noted law review article, “The Fall of the Citadel”:

The public interest in human safety requires the maximum possible protection for the user of the product, and those best able to afford it are the suppliers of the chattel. By placing their goods upon the market, the suppliers represent to the public that they are suitable and safe for use; and by packaging, advertising and otherwise, they do everything they can to induce that belief….(citing) 50 Minn.L.Rev. 791, 799 (1966). This concept of “public interest” is the guiding principle of our present opinion.

We are fortunate that the Nevada Supreme Court continues to adhere and espouse this principal.  In doing so, the Court meaningfully protects the rights of Nevada families who suffer catastrophic harm from defective products.  Having a good, experienced products liability attorney representing you doesn’t hurt either.

Relatively speaking, collisions involving trucks happen as frequently on Nevada highways and roadways as anywhere else in the country.  Injury cases arising out of truck accidents must be handled differently than the ordinary auto accident case.  Trucking companies and their insurance defense lawyers have “rapid response teams” that rush to truck accident scenes, conduct their own investigations, and generally attempt “damage control” at the scene to the extent they can.  This damage control done on behalf of the trucking company is not always done ethically or impartially, but more with an eye towards limiting or avoiding liability, all at a time when advocates for any injured parties (including truck drivers themselves) are absent, incapacitated, or dead.

Unlike an ordinary auto accident case, a plaintiff begins their truck accident injury case with the deck stacked against him or her, and must therefore play “catch up” in order to compete with the immense resources directed against them at the outset.  If White & Wetherall gets called promptly after a truck collision case (occurring anywhere in Nevada), we have the ability to dispatch a “rapid response” team of our own, to insure evidence is obtained and preserved that might otherwise be inadvertently degraded, lost, or concealed on purpose.  Of course, we are only able to mobilize this type of response if a friend or loved one contacts us ASAP after such an accident.  Of course, that’s not always possible.  Fortunately, even if weeks or months go by before we are contacted, there are still mechanisms and litigation techniques at our disposal to prevent the loss of valuable evidence.

Nevada law enforcement typically does a pretty good job of taking measurements and preserving evidence at truck accident scenes, but their investigation is not always as thorough as is required in an injury case.  The moral of this message is, if at all possible, involve competent attorneys as quickly as possible after an accident involving a truck.