Nevada ComparativeNegligence Law(NRS 41.141).

What is Nevada's modified comparative negligence rule?

Nevada Revised Statute 41.141 governs how shared fault is handled in most personal injury and wrongful death cases. The statute does two things at once. First, it allows an injured person to recover damages even if they share some fault for the accident — so long as their fault is not greater than the combined fault of the people they are suing. Second, it reduces their recovery in direct proportion to their share of fault.

In practical terms, the threshold most lawyers and insurers refer to is "50%." If you are 50% or less at fault, you may still recover under NRS 41.141. If you are 51% or more at fault, you are barred from recovering anything. This is the difference between Nevada's "modified" system and the "pure" comparative negligence system used in some states, where a plaintiff who is 99% at fault could still recover 1% of their damages.

NRS 41.141 also shifted Nevada from joint-and-several liability toward several liability in most negligence cases. Each defendant generally pays only its own percentage share of the damages — with limited exceptions, including strict-liability product cases, concerted action, and certain hazardous activities.

How is fault percentage determined in Nevada?

If a case goes to trial, the jury (or the judge in a bench trial) decides each party's percentage of fault as a finding of fact. The jury hears the evidence — police reports, photographs, dashcam or surveillance video, witness testimony, expert reconstruction, and medical records — and assigns percentages that must add up to 100%.

Most cases never reach a jury. They settle. In pre-suit settlement negotiations, insurance adjusters assign provisional fault percentages internally. Those numbers shape settlement offers, but they are not binding. They reflect the adjuster's view of what a jury might do — and they are routinely skewed in the insurer's favor. An attorney's job is to push back with the same evidence a jury would see, and to make the cost of holding the line higher than the cost of paying a fair number.

The factors that move fault percentages in Nevada cases are usually the same ones a reasonable person would expect: who had the right of way, who was speeding, who was distracted, whether either driver had been drinking, and whether either party violated a specific statute or ordinance.

What happens if I am exactly 50% at fault?

You can still recover. NRS 41.141 bars recovery only when the plaintiff's fault is greater than the combined fault of the defendants. An exact 50/50 split is not greater than 50% — so the plaintiff at 50% still recovers, reduced by half.

This matters in cases where the facts look very mixed: an intersection collision where both drivers entered on a yellow light, a slip-and-fall where the floor was wet but the customer was looking at a phone, a left-turn crash where the oncoming driver was speeding. A 50/50 outcome in those cases is still a recovery, not a defense verdict.

Does comparative negligence apply to all injury cases in Nevada?

NRS 41.141 applies to most negligence-based personal injury and wrongful death claims in Nevada, including:

• Car, truck, and motorcycle collisions
• Slip-and-fall and other premises liability cases
• Bicycle and pedestrian collisions
• Rideshare and commercial vehicle cases
• Most negligent supervision and negligent security claims

It applies differently — or in some cases not at all — to:

• Strict product liability cases: Treated separately from ordinary negligence, with different rules on apportionment.
• Intentional torts: A defendant who intentionally injures someone generally cannot reduce damages by pointing to the victim's negligence.
• Statutory schemes with their own fault rules — for example, workers' compensation, which is generally a no-fault system.

How do insurance adjusters use comparative negligence against you?

NRS 41.141 is the single most useful tool an insurance adjuster has for reducing what they pay on a Nevada injury claim. Every percentage point of fault they can pin on the injured person comes directly out of the payout. On a $100,000 claim, moving fault from 0% to 20% saves the insurer $20,000.

Common tactics include:

• Requesting a recorded statement within days of the crash, while you are still on pain medication and unsure of details, and asking leading questions designed to produce admissions.
• Combing through social media for photos, posts, and check-ins that contradict your injuries or movements.
• Arguing failure to mitigate — saying you waited too long to seek care, skipped physical therapy, or didn't follow doctor's orders.
• Pointing to seatbelt or helmet non-use as a basis for assigning fault for the severity of injuries.
• Re-framing minor facts — "you were going 38 in a 35" — as evidence of meaningful comparative fault.

An attorney's role is to identify these moves before they happen and to refuse to provide ammunition for them. That includes declining unnecessary recorded statements and routing all communication through counsel. See our guidance on why you should not give a recorded statement.

Real example: how comparative negligence affects a $100,000 settlement

Assume a car accident in Las Vegas where the at-fault driver ran a red light and struck the plaintiff, causing $100,000 in total damages (medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering). The plaintiff was traveling 3 mph over the posted speed limit at the time of impact.

The insurance adjuster proposes the following allocation:

• At-fault driver: 80% fault
• Plaintiff: 20% fault (for the 3 mph over the limit)

Under NRS 41.141, the plaintiff's recovery would be $100,000 reduced by 20% — a recovery of $80,000.

Now assume the plaintiff's attorney challenges the 20% figure with evidence — a reconstruction expert demonstrates that the speed differential made no causal contribution to the collision, because the at-fault driver entered the intersection three full seconds after the light turned red. The adjuster (or, ultimately, a jury) revises the allocation to 100% / 0%. The recovery becomes $100,000.

A $20,000 swing on a single contested fact is not unusual. On a larger claim, the same percentage move can mean tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is the math that makes contesting comparative fault one of the most important things an attorney does on a Nevada injury case. (This example is illustrative; outcomes vary based on facts and the strength of evidence on both sides.)

Can a comparative negligence finding be challenged?

Yes — at multiple stages.

Pre-suit: An attorney can challenge an adjuster's fault allocation with the same evidence a jury would see — reconstruction reports, dashcam footage, surveillance video from nearby businesses, additional witness statements, expert opinions, and medical causation evidence. The earlier this is done, the better, because evidence (especially video) is often deleted within days or weeks.

During litigation: Comparative fault is a fact question. Both sides can put on evidence, depose witnesses, and use experts. Summary-judgment motions can sometimes eliminate weak fault arguments before trial.

After verdict: Jury fault allocations are reviewed on appeal under a deferential standard, but verdicts that have no support in the evidence can be set aside. Allocation errors based on legal mistakes (such as improper jury instructions on NRS 41.141) can also be raised on appeal.

How NRS 41.141 interacts with the statute of limitations

Comparative negligence does not change the deadline to file. Most Nevada personal injury claims must be filed within two years of the date of injury under NRS 11.190(4)(e). If that deadline passes, the case is barred regardless of how favorable the fault allocation might have been. Evidence that supports your fault position — surveillance video, dashcam files, electronic data — often disappears long before the two-year statute runs. Acting early is what makes comparative-fault arguments winnable later.