Tag Archives: Nevada

Gavel

Nevada’s Common Law Meaning of the Term “Substantial Completion” in the Statute of Repose


This entry was posted by on .

Statutes of repose establish a legislature’s determination of when defendants should be free from liability. As set forth in Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 11.202, the statute of repose for construction improvements in Nevada is six years after “substantial completion.” In Somersett Owners Ass’n v. Somersett Dev. Co., 492 P.3d 534 (Nev. 2021), the Supreme Court of Nevada (Supreme Court) discussed when a construction improvement is substantially complete, as defined by the common law, for purposes of NRS 11.202. Because the plaintiff did not establish that its suit was filed within six years of when the rockery walls at issue were substantially complete, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court below. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Construction Defects, Nevada, Statute of Limitations-Repose and tagged , , .
Gavel

In Nevada, Custom Sign Manufacturers Can Be Held Strictly Liable


This entry was posted by on .

In Schueler v. Ad Art, No. 75688-COA, 2020 Nev. App. LEXIS 6, the Court of Appeals of Nevada recently considered whether a custom-made sign constituted a “product” for purposes of the doctrine of strict products liability. The court held that the sign ­­–– a large MGM Grand (MGM) sign located atop a 150-foot tall steel pylon –– was a product for the purposes of strict products liability. Thus, the court held that Ad Art, Inc. (Ad Art), who designed, engineered, and managed the production and installation of the sign, could be held strictly liable for injuries to Charles Schueler (Schueler), a service worker who fell and sustained serious injuries. Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Nevada, Products Liability and tagged , , .

Nevada Refuses to Increase Plaintiff’s Burden Of Proof for Product Liability Design Defect Claim


This entry was posted by on .

In the United States, to prove a products liability claim based upon a design defect, the plaintiff must either meet: (1) the consumer-expectation test, or (2) the risk-utility test, depending upon the jurisdiction. Although Nevada has historically followed the consumer-expectation test, in a recent decision the Supreme Court of Nevada evaluated whether to adopt the more stringent risk-utility test. Ultimately, the court rejected adoption of the risk-utility test and reaffirmed its prior precedent holding that a plaintiff need only meet the consumer-expectation test. See Ford Motor Company v. Trejo, 2017 Nev. LEXIS 90 (September 27, 2017). Continue reading →

This entry was posted in Nevada, Products Liability and tagged , .