Tag: NRS 651.015

When is a hotel liable for the wrongful acts of a third party?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Hotel innkeep liability

Humphries vs. New York-New York Hotel & Casino, LLC (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Oct. 5, 2017)

This case deals with a patron that seeks to hold a casino civilly liable for injuries they suffered during an altercation with another patron on the casino floor. NRS 651.015 precludes such liability unless the wrongful act that caused the injuries was foreseeable. The statute further provides that a wrongful act is not foreseeable unless the owner or innkeeper failed to exercise due care for the safety of the patron or other person on the premises or had notice or knowledge of prior incidents of similar wrongful acts on the premises. In this case, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the casino, finding that the casino did not owe a duty to the patrons pursuant to NRS 651.015 because the casino had no “notice or knowledge” the other patron would assault the patrons.

Humphries and Rocha were walking through New York-New York Hotel & Casino’s (NYNY) casino floor at 3:50 a.m. Humphries exchanged pleasantries with a woman who was accompanying another casino patron, Ferrell. Ferrell began conversing with Humphries and allegedly made a vulgar comment to her. Humphries responded and made a spitting motion towards Ferrell and then turned to walk away. Ferrell attacked Humphries, hitting and kicking her multiple times, and allegedly throwing her into a slot machine. Rocha, who was playing a slot machine when the attack began, attempted to intervene and was also hit by Ferrell.

Continue reading “When is a hotel liable for the wrongful acts of a third party?” →

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 5, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 5, 2017

MENDENHALL VS. TASSINARI

  • Are claims that are brought by the offering party in a second action, and arise out of facts that were discovered after serving the NRCP 68 offer, barred by general principles of claim preclusion or by the very terms of the NRCP 68 offer.

HUMPHRIES VS. NEW YORK-NEW YORK HOTEL & CASINO, LLC

  • When does an innkeeper owe a duty of care for on premises injuries caused by third parties because the wrongful act of a third party was foreseeable.

SWEAT (LONNIE) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

  • Does a defendant who pleads guilty to a lesser charge pursuant to a plea agreement and fails to comply with the terms of that agreement, waive his or her right to be protected from prosecution on a greater charge.

WILLIAMS (JESSICA) VS. STATE, DEP’T OF CORR.

  • Do credits earned pursuant to NRS 209.4465 apply to eligibility for parole as provided in NRS 209.4465(7)(b) where the offender was sentenced pursuant to a statute that requires a minimum term of not less than a set number of years, but does not mention parole eligibility.

FREDIANELLI VS. MARTINEZ

  • Can an attorney actively enforce a retaining lien.
  • Is an affirmative recovery necessary in the retaining lien context.
  • Can a retaining lien be reduced to a monetary judgment.

JOHNSON (DONTE) VS. STATE (DEATH PENALTY-PC)

  • Must a defendant file a postconviction petition within one year after remittitur issued on direct appeal from his original judgment of conviction where the direct appeal resulted in reversal and remand for another penalty hearing such that his sentences were unsettled.

IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.D.L. AND C.L.B., JR.

  • Are a parent’s Fifth Amendment rights violated when he or she is required to admit to a criminal act in order to maintain his or her parental rights.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

When is an employer liable for an employee’s criminal conduct?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Anderson v. Mandalay Corp. (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Oct. 15, 2015)

NRS 41.745(1)(c) makes employers vicariously liable for employees’ intentional torts if a plaintiff can show the intentional conduct was reasonably foreseeable under the facts and circumstances of the case considering the nature and scope of the employee’s employment. The issue is whether it was reasonably foreseeable that an employee would rape a hotel guest.

Anderson and her husband sued Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino (Mandalay) after Gonzalez, a Mandalay employee, raped Anderson in her hotel room at Mandalay. Anderson and her husband asserted claims against Mandalay for negligent hiring, vicarious liability, and loss of consortium. During discovery, Anderson asked for leave to amend her complaint to add claims for negligent security, retention, and supervision. Mandalay sought summary judgment, and at the summary judgment hearing, Anderson’s counsel abandoned all claims except the vicarious liability claim. The district court granted Mandalay’s motion for summary judgment, concluding Mandalay was not vicariously liable for Gonzalez’s criminal act. The district court also denied, as futile, Anderson’s motion to amend her complaint. Anderson appealed.

Anderson came to Las Vegas on September 8, 2008, to attend a trade show on behalf of her employer. She checked into room 8916 at Mandalay. After performing some work-related duties, she and her coworkers went out for dinner and drinks. Anderson became intoxicated and returned to Mandalay around 2 a.m. on September 9, 2008. Surveillance footage shows that she and Gonzalez shared an elevator; both exited on the eighth floor. Anderson entered her room, shut the door behind her, and went to sleep.

Continue reading “When is an employer liable for an employee’s criminal conduct?” →