Understanding Modified Comparative Fault in Nevada (NRS 41.141)

When someone is injured in an accident or a family loses a loved one due to negligence, establishing fault is often at the heart of pursuing compensation. In Nevada, this process is governed by a legal doctrine known as Modified Comparative Fault, codified under NRS 41.141.

At Shook & Stone, we work with clients every day who are navigating the complexities of this law. Here’s what you need to know — and how our experience helps ensure your rights are protected.

What Is a Modified Comparative Fault?

Under NRS 41.141, when more than one party shares responsibility for an accident or injury, a court may assign a percentage of fault to each party involved — including the injured person or their estate.

Key Rule:

If the plaintiff (injured party) is found to be more than 50% at fault, they are barred from recovering any compensation.

If the plaintiff is 50% or less at fault, they can still recover damages — but their award will be reduced in proportion to their percentage of fault.

Examples of How It Works

Let’s say you’re injured in a car accident, and the jury finds:

• The other driver is 70% at fault
  
• You are 30% at fault
  
• Your total damages are $100,000
  

Under NRS 41.141, you would be eligible to recover $70,000 (your damages reduced by your 30% share of fault).

However, if you were found 51% at fault, you would recover nothing under Nevada law.

How Does This Apply in Real Cases?

In one recent case handled by our team, a pedestrian was tragically killed by a commercial driver who was later charged with DUI. While the police noted the pedestrian was not in a crosswalk, our team successfully demonstrated that the driver’s impairment and safety violations outweighed any fault of the pedestrian. Because of this, we were able to secure a full $1 million settlement on behalf of the victim’s daughter — despite the comparative fault issue.

This is just one example of how critical it is to have experienced attorneys who understand how to build strong liability arguments and minimize your share of fault when the facts are complex.

Why Modified Comparative Fault Matters

This law often comes into play in:

• Car, motorcycle, and truck accidents
  
• Pedestrian and bicycle injuries
  
• Slip and fall/premises liability claims
  
• Wrongful death actions
  

Insurance companies frequently try to shift blame to reduce or avoid paying claims. Under NRS 41.141, even a slight increase in your assigned fault can eliminate your right to recover — which is why skilled legal representation is essential.

How Shook & Stone Can Help

At Shook & Stone, our attorneys are deeply familiar with the nuances of Nevada’s comparative fault system. We know how to challenge inflated blame arguments and present the strongest possible case for our clients — whether in settlement negotiations or in court.

Contact Us Today

If you or a loved one is facing an injury claim and concerned about shared fault, don’t navigate it alone. We’re here to protect your rights, fight back against unfair blame, and recover what you deserve.

Schedule your free consultation today.