In the 2005 decision of Langdon v. Matamoros, the Nevada Supreme Court said that a conviction on a misdemeanor traffic ticket is not enough to create per se civil liability under N.R.S. 41.133. See our treatment of this case by clicking HERE. But left undecided was question of the scope of liability under N.R.S. 41.133 when the statute was actually triggered. That question was answered in the recent case of Cromer v. Wilson, 126 Nev. Adv. Op. 11 (March 11, 2010). In Cromer, the Defendant had been convicted of felony DUI. This caused Defendant to be found liable as a matter of law under the statute.
The question before the Cromer Court was whether, once the statute was triggered, could the Defendant still present evidence of the comparative negligence to reduce or eliminate damages. See N.R.S. 41.141. See previous posts addressing this subject HERE. The court ruled that in spite of the fact that the Defendant was found to be negligent as a matter of law, he not precluded from using the defense of comparative fault to reduce damages or avoid them altogether under N.R.S. 41.141.
The court also found that the conclusive liability provision of N.R.S. 41.133 applies only to the victim of the criminal conduct and therefore would not apply to claims by non-victim claimants. It appears that the Court is leaning towards finding that comparative negligence will always be a viable defense in any Nevada tort claim.