A recent Order in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada excluded the testimony of plaintiff economics expert Dr. Stan Smith regarding his opinions on the loss of enjoyment of life suffered by the Plaintiff. Order Granting Defendants Motion in Limine. Jones v. Kelly, Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. Case No. A-19-803468-C (December 12, 2022). Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff retained Dr. Stan Smith to provide opinions regarding the loss of household … [Read more...]
Hedonic Damages in Nevada
February 14, 2023 by
In Banks v. Sunrise Hospital, 120 Nev. 822, 102 P.3d 52 (2004) Nevada joined those states which allow an award for hedonic damages stating: damages for “loss of enjoyment of life” compensate for the limitations, resulting from the defendant’s negligence on the injured person’s ability to participate in and derive pleasure from the normal activities of daily life, or for the individual’s inability to pursue his talents, recreational interests, hobbies, or avocations. In Nevada, hedonic damages … [Read more...]
Collateral Source Is Still Good Law Despite Tri-County Equipment Decision
May 6, 2015 by
Following the California case of Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal. 4th 541, 257 P.3d 81, 128 CalRptr. 3d 658 (2011), the Nevada Law Blogs began wondering if Nevada would follow California’s lead and prohibit Plaintiff’s attorneys from introducing evidence of any medical bills that had been partially or totally forgiven by Plaintiff’s medical provider. Then came the Nevada case of Tri–County Equip. & Leasing, LLC v. Klinke, 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 33, 286 P.3d 593 (2012). We … [Read more...]
The Accident Report Favors Our Driver. Liability’s A Lock! Or Is It?
June 13, 2014 by
A taxi cab hits the back of a small pickup truck. Witnesses place blame on the cab. The officer tickets the cabbie. The officer prepares a traffic accident report. The report says the cab driver is at-fault. When trial comes around, the judge admits the traffic report into evidence. In the case of Frias v. Valle, 101 Nev. 219, 698 P.2d 875 (1985), the Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and sent the case back to be tried again. But why? The Court explained the traffic accident … [Read more...]
California Court Clarifies Confusion Post-Howell
January 9, 2014 by
Ever since the California Supreme Court decided Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc., 52 Cal 4th 541 (2013), California’s lower courts have been dealing with the billed vs. paid issue. The opinion of Corenbaum v. Lampkin, 214 Cal.App.4th 1308 (2013) is an example. An intoxicated Lampkin drove his car and hit the taxi in which Corenbaum was a passenger. Cornebaum’s medical insurance paid his bills but at a discounted rate. In other words, the medical providers accepted the … [Read more...]
