Accident Claims - Las Vegas Lawyer - Las Vegas Attorney

If your Nevada accident claim goes to a jury trial, the jury will be instructed by a Nevada Judge on procedures and legal points. These are called Nevada Jury Instructions. The instructions may define negligence or tell the jurors how they must decide if they find certain facts to be true. Jury instructions can be critical to a case. Sometimes, the Las Vegas Attorneys litigating your accident claim will argue over which Jury Instructions are used in the case. Below are samples from actual Nevada Jury Instructions. Different instructions may be used in your case and these are only provided to illustrate the possible Jury Instructions which could be used in your Nevada personal injury lawsuit.

This material is fairly comprehensive, so you may want to read the Nevada Personal Injury Law Introduction on our home page. Also, you can get an overview of the different types of accidents such as Wrongful Death, Auto Accidents, Premises Liability, and Products Liability before you explore the numerous Jury Instructions which might be used in Nevada accident claims.

DUTY OF JUDGE AND JURY

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:

It is my duty as Judge to instruct you in the law that applies to this case. It is your duty as jurors to follow these instructions and to apply the rules of law to the facts as you find them from the evidence.

You must not be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated in these instructions. Regardless of any opinion you may have as to what the law ought to be, it would be a violation of your oath to base a verdict upon any other view of the law than that given in the instructions of the court. (NEV. J.I. 1.0.1)

USE OF INSTRUCTIONS

If, in these instructions, any rule, direction or idea is repeated or stated in different ways, no emphasis thereon is intended by me and none may be inferred by you. For that reason, you are not to single out any certain sentence or any individual point or instruction and ignore the others, but you are to consider all the instructions as a whole and regard each in the light of all the others.

The order in which the instructions are given has no significance as to their relative importance. (NEV. J.I. 1.01.1)

WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

The evidence which you are to consider in this case consists of the testimony of the witnesses, the exhibits, and any facts admitted or agreed to by counsel. Statements, arguments and opinions of counsel are not evidence in the case. However, if the attorneys stipulate as to the existence of a fact, you must accept the stipulation as evidence and regard that fact as proved.

You must not speculate to be true any insinuations suggested by a question asked a witness. A question is not evidence and may be considered only as it supplies meaning to the answer. You must disregard any evidence to which an objection was sustained by the court and any evidence ordered stricken by the court. Anything you may have seen or heard outside the courtroom is not evidence and must also be disregarded. (NEV. J.I. 1.03; BAJI 1.02.1)

JURORS MUST USE EVERYDAY COMMON SENSE; VERDICT MAY NEVER BE INFLUENCED BY SYMPATHY, PREJUDICE OR PUBLIC OPINION

Although you are to consider only the evidence in the case in reaching a verdict, you must bring to the consideration of the evidence your everyday common sense and judgment as reasonable men and women. Thus, you are not limited solely to what you see and hear as the witnesses testify. You may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence which you feel are justified in the light of common experience, keeping in mind that such inferences should not be based on speculation or guess. A verdict may never be influenced by sympathy, prejudice or public opinion. Your decision should be the product of sincere judgment and sound discretion in accordance with these rules of law. (NEV. J.I. 1.05.1)

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

There are two kinds of evidence; direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony of an eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, proof of a chain of facts from which you could find that another fact exists, even though it has not been proved directly. You are entitled to consider both kinds of evidence. The law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence. It is for you to decide whether a fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence. (NEV. J.I. 2.00.1)

JURY TO CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE

In determining whether any proposition has been proved, you should consider all of the evidence bearing on the question without regard to which party produced it. (NEV. J.I. 2.01.1)

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AS EVIDENCE

During the course of the trial you have heard reference made to the word “interrogatory”. An interrogatory is a written question asked by one party of another, who must answer it under oath in writing. You are to consider interrogatories and the answers thereto the same as if the questions had been asked and answered here in court. (NEV. J.I. 2.04; BAJI 2.07.1)

STIPULATIONS AS EVIDENCE

If counsel for the parties have stipulated to any fact, you will regard that fact as being conclusively proved [as to the party or parties making the stipulation]. (NEV. J.I. 2.06; BAJI 1.02.1)

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS; WITNESS THAT HAS TESTIFIED FALSELY

The credibility or “believability” of a witness should be determined by his or her manner upon the stand, his or her relationship to the parties, his or her fears, motives, interests or feelings, his or her opportunity to have observed the matter to which he or she testified, the reasonableness of his or her statements and the strength or weakness of his or her recollections. If you believe that a witness has lied about any material fact in the case, you may disregard the entire testimony of that witness or any portion of this testimony which is not proved by other evidence. (NEV. J.I. 2.07; BAJI 2.22.1)

DISCREPANCIES IN A WITNESS’S TESTIMONY

Discrepancies in a witness’s testimony or between his testimony and that of others, if there were any discrepancies, do not necessarily mean that the witness should be discredited. Failure of recollection is a common experience, and innocent misrecollection is not uncommon. It is a fact, also, that two persons witnessing an incident or transaction often will see or hear it differently. Whether a discrepancy pertains to a fact of importance or only to a trivial detail should be considered in weighing its significance. (NEV. J.I. 2.08; BAJI 2.21.1)

EXPERT TESTIMONY; EVALUATION BY JURY

A person who has special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in particular science, profession or occupation may give his or her opinion as an expert as to any matter in which he or she is skilled. In determining the weight to be given such opinion, you should consider the qualifications and credibility of the expert and the reasons given for his or her opinion. You are not bound by such opinion. Give it the weight, if any, to which you deem it entitled. (NEV. J.I. 2.11; BAJI 2.40.1)

EXPERT TESTIMONY; EVALUATION BY JURY OF ANSWER TO HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION

A question has been asked in which an expert witness was told to assume that certain facts were true and to give an opinion based upon that assumption. This is called a hypothetical question. If any fact assumed in the question has not been established by the evidence, you should determine the effect of that omission upon the value of the opinion. (NEV. J.I. 2.12; BAJI 2.42.1)

BURDEN OF PROOF; PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

Whenever in these instructions I state that the burden, or the burden of proof, rests upon a certain party to prove a certain allegation made by him, the meaning of such an instruction is this:

That unless the truth of the allegation is proved by ap preponderance of the evidence, you shall find the same not to be true. The term “preponderance of the evidence” means such evidence as, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force, and from which is appears that the greater probability of truth lies therein. (NEV. J.I. 3.00.1)

NUMBER OF WITNESSES

The preponderance, or weight of evidence, is not necessarily with the greater number of witnesses. The testimony of one witness worthy of belief is sufficient for the proof of any fact and would justify a verdict in accordance with such testimony, even if a number witnesses have testified to the contrary. If, from the whole case, considering the credibility of witnesses, and after weighing the various factors of evidence, you believe that there is a balance of probability pointing to the accuracy and honesty of the one witness, you should accept his testimony. (NEV. J.I. 3.01.1)

CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION; JURY QUESTION AS TO EXISTENCE OF BASIC FACTS

If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that (insert controverted basic facts), then you must also find that (insert presumed fact). If you do not find by a preponderance of the evidence that (insert controverted basic facts), then you must find that (insert nonexistence of presumed fact). (NEV. J.I. 3.02.1)

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION; BASIC FACTS ESTABLISHED AS A MATTER OF LAW; JURY QUESTION AS TO PRESUMED FACT

The law provides for a disputable presumption that (insert disputable presumption). In this action, it has been established that (insert basic facts). The effect of this disreputable presumption is that it places upon (insert name of party against whom presumption is directed) the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the other evidence that (insert nonexistence of presumed fact). (NEV. J.I. 3.03.1)

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION; JURY QUESTION AS TO BASIC FACTS AND PRESUMED FACT

The law provides for a disputable presumption that (insert disputable presumption). If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that (insert basic facts), then the disputable presumption operations to shift to (insert name of party against whom presumption is directed) the burden of proving by a preponderance of the other evidence, that (insert nonexistence of presumed fact). If, on the other hand, you do not find by a preponderance of the evidence that (insert basic facts), then the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (insert existence of presumed fact) remains with (insert name of party attempting to invoke presumption). (NEV. J.I. 3.04.1)

RESPECTIVE BURDENS OF PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT; GENERAL

[Except as I have already instructed you upon the law relative to presumptions,] The plaintiff has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence all of the facts necessary to prove the following issues: [Except as I have already instructed you upon the law relative to presumptions,] The defendant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence all of the facts necessary to prove the following issues: (NEV. J.I. 3.05.1)

RESPECTIVE BURDENS OF PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT; NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

The plaintiff has the burden to prove that the plaintiff sustained damage, that the defendant was negligent, and that such negligence was a [proximate] [legal] cause of the damage sustained by the plaintiff.

The defendant has the burden of proving, as an affirmative defense, that some contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff himself, was a [proximate] [legal] cause of any damage plaintiff may have sustained. (NEV. J.I. 3.06.1)

ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE CLAIM

In order to establish a claim of negligence, the plaintiff must prove the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. That the defendant was negligent; and
2. That the defendant’s negligence was a [proximate] [legal] cause of damage to the plaintiff. (NEV. J.I. 4.02.1)

NEGLIGENCE AND ORDINARY CARE; DEFINITIONS

Negligence is the failure to exercise that degree of care which an ordinarily careful and prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances Ordinary care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence exercise in the management of their own affairs in order to avoid injury to themselves or to others.

[You will note that the person who conduct we set up as a standard is not the extraordinarily cautious individual, not the exceptionally skillful one, but a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence. While exceptional skill is to be administered and encouraged, the law does not demand it as a general standard of conduct.] (NEV. J.I. 4.03; BAJI 3.10.1)

PROXIMATE CAUSE; DEFINITION

A proximate cause of injury, damage, loss or harm is a cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, produces the injury, damage, loss, or harm, and without which the injury, damage, loss, or harm, would not have occurred. (NEV. J.I. 4.04; BAJI: 3.75.1)

LEGAL CAUSE; DEFINITION

A legal cause of injury, damage, loss or harm is a cause which is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury, damage, loss, or harm. (NEV. J.I. 4.04A; BAJI 3.76.1.1)

RES IPSA LOQUITUR; NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION

On the issue of negligence, one of the questions for you to decide in this case is whether the [accident] [injury] occurred under the following conditions:

First, that it is the kind of [accident] [injury] which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence;

Second, that it was caused by an agency or instrumentality [in the exclusive control of the defendant] [over which the defendant had the exclusive right of control] [originally, and which was not mishandled or otherwise changed after defendant relinquished control]; and

Third, that the [accident] [injury] was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff which was the responsible cause of his injury.

If you should find all of these conditions to exist, you are instructed as follows: (NEV. J.I. 4.18; BAJI 4.00.1)

RES IPSA LOQUITUR; PERMISSIBLE INFERENCE OF NEGLIGENCE

From the happening of the [accident] [injury] involved in this case, you may draw an inference that a [proximate] [legal] cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant. However, you shall not find that [proximate] [legal] cause of the occurrence was some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant unless you believe, after weighing all the evidence in the case and drawing such inferences therefrom as you believe are warranted, that it is more probable than not that the occurrence was caused by some negligent conduct on the part of the defendant. (NEV. J.I. 4.19; BAJI 4.02.1)

CONCURRING CAUSES

There may be more than one [proximate] [legal] cause of an injury. When negligent conduct of two or more persons contributes concurrently as [proximate] [legal] causes of an injury, the conduct of each of said persons is a [proximate] [legal] cause of the injury regardless of the extent to which each contributes to the injury. A cause is concurrent if it was operative at the moment of injury and acted with another cause to produce the injury. [It is no defense that the negligent conduct of a person not joined as a party was also a [proximate] [legal] cause of the injury.] (NEV. J.I. 4.05; BAJI 3.77.1)

WHEN THIRD PARTY’S INTERVENING NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A SUPERSEDING CAUSE

If you find that defendant [(first actor)] was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about an injury to the plaintiff but that the immediate cause of the injury was the negligent conduct of [ a third person] [defendant (second actor)], the defendant [(first actor)] is not relieved of liability for such injury if:

1. At the time of his conduct defendant [(first actor)] realized or reasonably should have realized that [a third person] [defendant (second actor)] might act as he did; [or the risk of harm suffered was reasonably foreseeable]; or

2. A reasonable person knowing the situation existing at the time of the conduct of the [third person] [defendant (second actor)] would not have regarded it as highly extraordinary that the [third person] [defendant (second actor)] had so acted; or

3. The conduct of the [third person] [defendant (second actor)] was not extraordinarily negligent and was a normal consequence of the situation created by defendant [(first actor)]. (NEV. J.I. 4.06; BAJI 3.79.1)

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; DEFINITION; EFFECT

The defendant seeks to establish that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of the plaintiff which, cooperating to some degree with negligence of another, helps in [proximately] [legally] causing an injury to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff may not recover damages if his contributory negligence has contributed more to his injury than the negligence of the defendant. However, if the plaintiff is negligent, he may still recover a reduced sum, so long as his contributory negligence was not greater than the negligence of the defendant. (NEV. J.I. 4.07.1)

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE; WRONGFUL DEATH

The defendant seeks to establish that the decedent was contributorily negligent. Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of the decedent which, cooperating to some degree with negligence of another, helps in [proximately] [legally] causing the death. The plaintiff may not recover damages if the decedent’s contributory negligence contributed more to his death than the negligence of the defendant. However, if the decedent was negligent, the plaintiff may still recover a reduced sum, so long as the decedent’s contributory negligence was not greater than the negligence of the defendant. (NEV. J.I. 4.08.1)

RIGHT TO ASSUME OTHERS WILL EXERCISE DUE CARE

A person who, himself, is exercising ordinary care has a right to assume that every other person will perform his duty under the law; and in the absence of reasonable cause for thinking otherwise, it is not negligence for such a person to fail to anticipate injury which can come to him only from a violation of law or duty by another. (NEV. J.I. 4.09.1)

EVIDENCE OF CUSTOM IN RELATION TO ORDINARY CARE

Evidence as to whether or not a person conformed to a custom that has grown up in a given locality or business is relevant and ought to be considered, but is not necessarily controlling on that question of whether or not he exercised ordinary care; for that question must be determined by the standard of care that has been stated to you. (NEV. J.I. 4.10; BAJI 3.16.1)

STANDARD OF CONDUCT FOR MINOR

A minor is not held to the same standard of conduct as an adult. He is only required to exercise the degree of care which ordinarily is exercised by minors of like age, intelligence and experience under similar circumstances. It is for you to determine whether the conduct of __________________ was such as might reasonably have been expected of a minor of his age, intelligence and experience, acting under similar circumstances.

[The rule just stated applies even when the evidence shows a minor may have violated an ordinance. The question of whether or not the minor was negligent must still be answered by the above standard as I have stated it to you.] (NEV. J.I. 4.11; BAJI 3.35.1)

VIOLATION OF LAW AS NEGLIGENCE PER SE; NO EVIDENCE OF EXCUSE OR JUSTIFICATION

There was in force at the time of the occurrence in question [a law] [laws] which read as follows:

A violation of the law[s] just read to you constitutes negligence as a matter of law. If you find that a party violated a law just read to you, it is your duty to find such violation to be negligence; and you should then consider the issue of whether that negligence was a [proximate] [legal] cause of injury or damage to the plaintiff. (NEV. J.I. 4.12.1)

JURY ISSUE AS TO EXCUSE OR JUSTIFICATION

There was in force at the time of the occurrence in question [a law] [laws] which read as follows:

An unexcused violation of the law[s] just read to you constitutes negligence as a matter of law. If you find that a party, without excuse or justification, violated a law just read to you, it is your duty to find such violation to be negligence; and you should then consider the issue of whether that negligence was a [proximate] [legal] cause of injury or damage to the plaintiff.

The burden of proof is upon the person who violated the law to show by a preponderance of the evidence that such violation was excusable or justifiable. A violation of law is excusable or justifiable only if you find that the person who violated the law did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law. (NEV. J.I. 4.13.1)

DUTY OF ONE IN IMMINENT PERIL

A person who, without negligence on his part, is suddenly and unexpectedly confronted with peril arising from either the actual presence of, or the appearance of, imminent danger to himself or to others, is not expected nor required to sue the same judgment and prudence that is required of him in the exercise of ordinary care in calmer and more deliberate moments. His duty is to exercise only the care than an ordinarily prudent person would exercise in the same situation. If at that moment he does what appears to him to be the best thing to do, and if his choice and manner of action are the same as might have been followed by any ordinarily prudent person under the same conditions, he does all the law requires of him; although in the light of after-events, it should appear that a difference course would have been better and safer. (NEV. J.I. 4.14; BAJI 4.40.1)

DUTY; VOLUNTEER

One who is under no duty to care for or render service to another, but who voluntarily assumes such duty, is subject to liability to the other for injury proximately caused by a failure to exercise ordinary or reasonable care in the performance of such assumed duty. (NEV. J.I. 4.15; BAJI 4.45.1)

ASSUMPTION OF RISK

The defendant seeks to establish that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury from the danger the plaintiff contends caused his injury. In order to establish that the plaintiff assumed the risk, the defendant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following elements:

1. That the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the risk;
2. That he fully appreciated the danger resulting from the risk; and
3. That he voluntarily exposed himself to the danger.

If you find that each of these elements has been proved, then the plaintiff may not recover for his injuries and your verdict should be for the defendant. If, on the other hand, you decide that any of these elements has not been proved, then the defendant has not proved the plaintiff assumed the risk. (NEV. J.I. 4.16.1)

EXPRESS ASSUMPTION OF RISK

If, prior to an event in which the plaintiff was injured as a result of defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff had expressly assumed the risk of such injury by specifically agreeing with the defendant that he, the plaintiff, would not hold the defendant responsible if an injury should be caused by the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff may not recover damages from the defendant for that injury. (NEV. J.I. 4.17; BAJI 4.30.1)

DUTY OF THE DRIVER OF VEHICLE ON PUBLIC HIGHWAY

It is the duty of the driver of any vehicle using a public highway to avoid placing himself or others in danger; [and] to use like care to avoid an accident; [to keep a proper lookout for traffic and other conditions to be reasonably anticipated] [and] [to maintain proper control of his vehicle.] (NEV J.I. 5.00; BAJI 5.00.1)

RANGE OF VISION

It is the duty of a driver of a motor vehicle, using a public highway in the nighttime, to be vigilant at all times and to drive at such rate of speed and to keep his vehicle under such control that, to avoid a collision, he can stop within the distance the highway is illuminated by its lights. (NEV J.I. 5.01.1)

RANGE OF VISION

A motorist ordinarily has a duty to drive an automobile on a public highway in such a manner that he can stop in time to avoid a collision with an object [within range of his vision] [within the area lighted by his headlights], and he is negligent in he fails to do so. A motorist is not, however, negligent where the object cannot be observed by the exercise of ordinary care in time to avoid a collision.

It is for you to determine from all the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence whether or not the object was or was not visible or discernible by the exercise of ordinary care in time for [plaintiff] [defendant] to avoid a collision. If you find that it was, you should find [plaintiff] [defendant] negligent; if you find that it was not, you should not find [plaintiff] [defendant] negligent in this respect. (NEV J.I. 5.01A.1)

RIGHT OF WAY; DEFINITION

The term “right of way” was used in these instructions means the right of one vehicle or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian, approaching under such circumstances or direction, speed and proximate as to give rise to danger of collision unless one gives way to the other. (NEV J.I. 5.02.1)

RIGHT OF WAY; RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF ONE HAVING RIGHT OF WAY

One who has the right of way and is proceeding in a lawful manner is entitled to assume others will yield. However, once he knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should know that another does not intend to yield, he must exercise reasonable care in endeavoring to avoid an accident. (NEV J.I. 5.03.1)

DIRECTION AGAINST IMPUTATION OF DRIVER’S NEGLIGENCE TO PLAINTIFF-PASSENGER

The negligence, if any, of the driver of the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger may not be imputed to the plaintiff. (NEV J.I. 5.04.1)

IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE; DRIVER TO OWNER-PASSENGER

If the owner of an automobile requests a person to drive it, and the owner remains in the vehicle while it is driven, it is presumed that the driver was operating the vehicle as the agent of the owner. Any negligence of the driver in the operation of the automobile is thus imputed to the owner. However, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the owner did not retain control of the direction over the automobile, then the presumption of agency is rebutted; and any negligence of the driver is not imputed to owner. (NEV J.I. 5.05.1)

IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE; FAMILY MEMBER

An owner of a motor vehicle is liable for any damages [proximately] [legally] resulting from the [negligence] [willful misconduct] of [his] [her] [wife] [husband] [son] [daughter] [father] [mother] [brother] [sister] [immediate family member] in driving and operating the vehicle upon a highway with the owner’s express or implied permission. Therefore, if you find defendant _______________________ is liable, you must find defendant(s) _____________________________ also liable. (NEV J.I. 5.06 NRS 41.440.1)

IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE; FAMILY MEMBER; DISPUTE AS TO PERMISSION

An owner of a motor vehicle is liable for any damages [proximate] [legally] resulting from the [negligence] [willful misconduct] of [his] [her] [wife] [husband] [son] [daughter] [father] [mother] [brother] [sister] [immediate family member] in driving and operating the vehicle upon a highway with the owner’s express or implied permission.

If you find defendant _______________________ is liable, you must then determine whether or not he was driving with th express or implied permission of defendant(s) _____________________________. If you find that the defendant _______________________ did not have such permission, then your verdict must be in favor of defendant(s) ___________________________________. But if you find that such permission, express or implied, had been given, you must find defendant(s) _______________________________________ also liable. (NEV J.I. 5.07.1)

PASSENGER’S DUTY

A passenger in an automobile has a legal duty to take ordinary precautions for his own safety and to use ordinary care for his own protection. (NEV J.I. 5.08.1)

UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR

One is not necessarily under the influence of intoxicating liquor as a result of consuming it. The circumstances and effect on the particular individual must be considered. In making this determination, the question to be answered is whether, as a result of drinking intoxicating liquor, the individual’s physical or mental abilities were impaired, so that he was unable to conduct himself with the caution of a sober person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances. Intoxication is no excuse for failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would act. A person who is intoxicated or under the influence of intoxicating liquor is held to the same standard of care as a sober person. (NEV J.I. 5.09; BAJI 5.42.1)

Read more about Nevada Jury Instructions.