CLIENT PORTAL

Recent Las Vegas Favorable Judgements

Our Las Vegas attorneys are always at the forefront, ready to defend their clients to the best of their abilities. In these three cases, Las Vegas partner, Mike Edwards, along with associates Nick Hamilton and David Pritchett, were able to achieve Summary Judgments on behalf of their clients.

Case 1:

The Plaintiff:

In this case, Mike Edwards (Partner – Las Vegas, NV) and Nick Hamilton (Associate – Las Vegas, NV) obtained summary judgment on behalf of a strip resort property in a premises liability action Nevada District Court. The plaintiffs filed their premises liability complaint against the property claiming that she slipped and fell in the bathroom of her hotel room immediately after check in and while she was alone.

Plaintiff testified that the floor in question was slippery but did not identify the substance or source of the slipperiness. Additionally, Plaintiff’s friend, testified that she did not see anything on the bathroom floor after Plaintiff’s fall but said the floor was very slippery and she almost fell as well. Plaintiffs alleged that negligence was proven via circumstantial evidence that no one had been in the room since Defendant’s cleaning crew prepared the room for the guest.  Plaintiff’s complaint alleged causes of action for Negligence, and Res Ipsa Loquitur.

The Defendant:

After discovery and before trial, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgement on all causes of action.  Defendant contended that Plaintiff could not prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant owed or breached a duty of care.  Plaintiff argued that the jury should be allowed to infer the Defendant’s negligence through the application of the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur and circumstantial evidence (that no one had been in the room since Defendants cleaning crew) and that Plaintiff and her witnesses had testified that they felt something slippery on the floor.

However, the court found that such evidence does not satisfy the necessary elements of Res Ipsa. A slip and fall is the type of accident that could ordinarily occur in the absence of someone else’s negligence.

The Result:

After briefing, the Court decided that because the Plaintiff could not, by other than speculation, identify a dangerous condition that caused her fall, Plaintiff failed to present evidence that Defendant had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition in the hotel bathroom prior to the Plaintiff’s accident. Ultimately, the Court held that the Plaintiff did not present evidence of actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition on the part of the Defendant, and since the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur does not apply to this case, the Court found that the Plaintiff’s claims of negligence, negligence – premises liability and res ipsa loquitur failed as a matter of law. Also, because the Plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support her claims of negligence on the part of the Defendant, the pendent claim for Loss of Consortium also fails as a matter of law.

Defendant was awarded its fees and costs following their statutory offer of judgment.

Case 2:

The Plaintiff:

Mike Edwards (Partner – Las Vegas, NV) obtained summary judgment on behalf of a strip resort property in a premises liability action Nevada District Court. The plaintiff claimed significant injuries after slipping on a liquid (spilled from a cooler by an unknown patron) that had been on the ground for under a minute prior to her fall. It was all captured on video, but Plaintiff argued that the flooring material itself that was “slick as ice”, in addition to the design of the property, constituted a known, dangerous condition.

The Defendant:

The defendant argued it was not liable as there was no evidence the property was negligent, its policies and procedures were not negligent, the design and materials were appropriate and there was no evidence it had notice of the spill.

The Result:

In a rarity for this plaintiff friendly jurisdiction, the judge granted the resort’s summary judgment motion and added on an award of fees and costs in favor of the client.

Case 3:

The Plaintiff:

Mike Edwards (Partner – Las Vegas, NV) and David Pritchett (Associate- Las Vegas, NV) obtained summary judgment on behalf of a Las Vegas hotel/casino resort in a premises liability action filed with the Nevada District Court.  The plaintiff, a female adult, claimed that she was walking from her suite toward the casino level of the resort shortly after checking in, when she allegedly slipped on a liquid spill on marble flooring, resulting in significant personal injuries.

The plaintiff claimed that the resort was liable based on constructive notice, asserting that the spill was present for such a period of time that the resort should have discovered the liquid spill and remedied the condition. The witnesses, the plaintiff’s family members, claimed that they did not see any other people in the area, which the plaintiff argued to be evidence that the alleged liquid spill was present for long enough to charge the resort with constructive notice of the condition.

The Defendant:

On behalf of the resort, defense counsel argued that the plaintiff could not demonstrate constructive notice, thus the defendant was not liable.  Specifically, defense counsel compared all the evidence, including all witness testimony, and was able to demonstrate to the Court that the plaintiff’s claim that nobody was in the area for approximately fifteen minutes prior to her fall, was impossible for the witnesses to actually know this fact; therefore, the plaintiff was unable to prove constructive notice, and summary judgment was appropriate.

The Result:

In a rarity for this plaintiff friendly jurisdiction, the Court granted the resort’s summary judgment motion, because the plaintiff could not demonstrate constructive notice.

Defendant’s motion for fees and costs following statutory offer of judgment pending.

Recent News