Car accidents occur all the time in Nevada. Many Nevada citizens have either been involved in an auto accident or we know someone who was hurt in a car wreck in Nevada. Many of our our friends, neighbors and family members have endured pain and suffering as a result of a Nevada car accident. Any car accident has the potential to cause severe injuries to the accident victim including soft-tissue injuries, back and neck injuries, bruising, loss of limb, broken bones, scarring, disfigurement, permanent physical disability and even death. Car accident insurance coverage is often available and can be utilized to pay for a Nevada auto accident victim’s pain, suffering, lost wages, medical bills and loss of quality of life. In the event that the victim was killed in a Nevada car accident, the auto accident victim’s family could be entitled to receive moeny damages as compensation for the emotional and financial losses they have suffered including the loss of companionship, the loss of support and the loss of consortium.
A Nevada car accident may involve numerous complicated legal topics including: comparative negligence, stacking of policies, subrogation rights, bad faith, minimum insurance coverage requirements and uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM – UIM) coverage issues. If you are not familiar with these topics and need to explore your legal options, you can consult a Nevada Attorney. A Nevada Attorney can assist in the evaluation of your Nevada auto accident claim. One of the important points to discuss is the filing time for your auto accident. A Nevada car accident complainant has two years from the date of the car wreck to file a lawsuit. The filing time is different in other states, so you should consult a local attorney.
If you or a family member were hurt in a car wreck in Nevada, there are a few things you can do to strengthen your car accident liability case and possibly increase the settlement or jury award available as compensation. These steps include the following: You should report the Nevada car accident to the police. If the accident report shows that the other driver was issued a citation for a traffic violation, this may establish liability and make your case stronger if you have to go to court over your vehicle accident in Nevada. You need to get the names and addresses of anyone who was a witness to the vehicle collision. Do not discuss the auto accident with anyone at the scene of the car wreck except for the Police who are investigating. As soon as possible, have pictures taken of your injuries and of the car damage. These pictures will be useful if your car accident claim does not settle and you have to go to trial to recover for your injuries. Also, you need to keep track of any receipts and documents related to your car accident because these documents will be used to support your claim when a Nevada Attorney makes a Demand on the insurance company for the settlement of your auto accident claim for damages.
Seek immediate medical care after the accident if you feel you were injured in any manner. Be sure to report any injury (no matter how slight it may seem at the time) to the police, paramedics, doctor, hospital or any other health care provider. Be very specific with the injury symptoms you are describing and do not leave anything out regardless of how slight it may seem at the time. This is because a slight symptom could indicate a serious injury and your doctor cannot give you an informed medical opinion if you held something back.
Be aware that the adjuster for the insurance company may try to convince to settle your car accident claim without using a Nevada personal injury attorney. You should use caution because the adjuster’s main objective is usually to get you to accept the lowest amount possible for the settlement of your personal injury claim. A friendly phone conversation with an insurance adjuster might hurt your auto accident claim. The adjuster could try to get you to say you were at fault for the auto accident. The insurance adjuster could try to get you to agree that your injuries were not severe. If this happens, you can tell the insurance adjuster: “I’m just not ready to discuss the accident at this time.” Remember that no matter how friendly the insurance adjuster or investigator seems, that person works for the insurance company. A Nevada Attorney works for you and represents your interest. Using a Nevada Attorney to settle your car accident claim could increase the amount of your accident settlement.
If you or a family member were involved in an auto accident anywhere in Nevada, you can get free legal advice and personal injury information in an initial consultation with David Matheny, Esq. of the law firm of Dempsey, Roberts & Smith, Ltd. Our office is located in Las Vegas, Nevada and we provide legal services for auto accident claims and other personal injury cases throughout Nevada.
Nevada Personal Injury Law can include numerous different injury claims. You should consult a Nevada Attorney anytime you are injured and you aren’t sure whether you have a legal right to recover money damages. If you want to evaluate your Nevada personal injury claim, contact a Nevada Attorney for free legal advice in an initial consultation.
Some of the numerous claims for personal injury include Drug Recalls, Nursing Home Malpractice-Abuse-Neglect, Medical Device Defects, Silicosis Claims, Diet Drug Injuries, Fen-Phen Claims, Pharmaceutical Injuries, Violent Crime Injuries, Cancer Misdiagnosis, Spinal Cord Injuries, Boating Injuries, Bus Passenger Injuries, Asbestos Claims, Sick Building Syndrome, Defective Hip Implants, Birth Injuries, Repetitive Stress Injuries and Toxic Mold Injuries. Other Nevada accident claims can include: Workplace Accidents – Drug Overdose Errors – Defective Medical Devices – Fires – Motorcycle Accidents – Bicycle Accidents – Trucking Accidents – Pedestrian Accidents – Construction Accidents – Explosions – Medical Malpractice – Nursing Malpractice – Elder Abuse – Premises Liability – Toxic Torts – Car Accidents in Nevada. If you have any doubt, call or e-mail a Nevada Attorney to arrange a free personal injury consultation to evaluate your legal rights.
If you were injured in Nevada, contact David Matheny, Esq. for a free personal injury consultation.
This case is governed by State v. Eaton, 101 Nev. 705, 710 P.2d 1370 (1985). Eaton requires that HN1a bystander plaintiff be closely related to the victim of an accident, be located near the scene of the accident, and suffer a shock resulting from direct emotional impact stemming from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident. Id. at 716, 710 P.2d at 1377-78. The majority of the cases on negligent infliction of emotional distress have involved automobile accidents, including Eaton. Thus, some of the language of these cases cannot appropriately be applied to the negligence of a pharmacist dispensing drugs. In addition to debating whether a plaintiff is a bystander or what the plaintiff actually observed, we should to look to the basic principles underlying the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In Eaton, this court discussed some of the history of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress due to injury to another. This court embraced the ruling in Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728, 441 P.2d 912, 69 Cal. Rptr. 72 (Cal. 1968) by saying:
The [Dillon] court held that liability could be circumscribed in these cases, as in all tort cases, by the application of the general principles of negligence. 441 P.2d at 924. The trial courts could determine whether the accident and the harm to the bystander was reasonably foreseeable and “thus mark out areas of liability, excluding the remote and unexpected.” 441 P.2d at 921. We agree with the reasoning of the California court. We “see no good reason why the general rules of tort law, including the concepts of negligence, proximate cause, and foreseeability, long applied to all other types of injury, should not govern the case before us.” 441 P.2d at 924 . . . See also II Harper and James Sec. 18.4, p. 1039 (“mechanical rules of thumb which are at variance with these [general] principles [of tort law] do more harm than good.”)
Eaton, 101 Nev. at 713, 710 P.2d at 1376.
Under this reasoning, it is not the precise position of plaintiff or what the plaintiff saw that must be examined. The overall circumstances must be examined to determine whether the harm to the plaintiff was reasonably foreseeable. Foreseeability is the cornerstone of this court’s test for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 715.
In this case, a daughter purchased prescription medication for her mother. The daughter then initiated and continued administration until her mother was rendered comatose. In effect, because of the pharmacist’s negligence, the daughter poisoned her mother. Under these facts, it was entirely foreseeable that the drug would significantly harm the actual patient and that a close relative would continue administration until the ultimate catastrophic effect was realized.
Of course, the plaintiff still faces the burden of proving her damages and proving that they were the proximate cause of the pharmacist’s negligence. The jury should be allowed to make the determination of whether [the]’ claim is meritorious