Cameron McVicar Batjer

The case involved the forfeiture of a 1978 Chevrolet van seized after its owner, Douglas Fischer, was arrested for selling amphetamines from it in Fallon, Nevada. His wife, Shelley Fischer, contested the forfeiture of her co-ownership interest under NRS 453.301, asserting she had no knowledge of or consent to the illegal use. The district court ordered forfeiture of her interest, interpreting the statute to require no actual knowledge or consent by a co-owner and finding her testimony insufficient. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute expressly protects an owner who establishes lack of knowledge or consent, that Shelley Fischer made a prima facie showing which the county failed to rebut, and that forfeiture statutes must be strictly construed against the government. The court remanded for judgment in her favor.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

In this case, a Nevada Highway Patrol trooper sued a private citizen for severe injuries sustained when another vehicle crashed into his patrol car while he was assisting at the scene of a trailer accident involving beehives on the interstate. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that the fireman's rule barred the officer's tort claim. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that as a matter of law a public safety officer assumes the normal risks of his employment and cannot recover for injuries caused by the very hazard he was called to address. The court reasoned that the rule prevents multiple liability for citizens whose negligence creates dangers that officers are paid and trained to handle, and that the beehives merely created the occasion for the officer's presence.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Lorraine Connell sued Patrick Higgins and his employer Carl’s Air Conditioning for damages from an October 1975 automobile collision in which Higgins was driving a hit-and-run vehicle. Higgins died before trial, but his deposition was admitted; at the close of evidence the district court granted Carl’s a directed verdict under NRCP 50(a), ruling that Higgins was not acting in the course and scope of employment because he was driving home with no evidence of any emergency errand or overtime work. The court also denied Connell’s motions to amend the complaint to add a negligent-entrustment theory, finding the requests untimely and the facts insufficient to show Carl’s had control over or entrusted the vehicle to Higgins. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the directed-verdict standard was met and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or find implied consent under NRCP 15 regarding the new claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved Best Brands, Inc. suing Nathan Jacobson to enforce a written personal guaranty he signed as president of A.L.W., Inc. (Kings Castle Hotel & Casino) for up to $100,000 in liquor debts; after Kings Castle entered bankruptcy and was later sold, Best Brands received a partial recovery but sought the balance from Jacobson. The district court entered judgment for Best Brands in the amount of $72,627.21 plus fees and costs, rejecting Jacobson's claims that the guaranty lacked mutual assent because it was signed only as a personal favor and that Jenny, Inc. had assumed the obligation. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the written guaranty was enforceable because Jacobson's parol evidence was not clear and convincing enough to overcome the instrument, the trial court's credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the parties had expressly waived interest in the guaranty document itself.

business & regulatory

In Noland v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., a subcontractor's employee sued another subcontractor, Westinghouse, for injuries from an elevator free-fall on a construction site, after receiving workers' compensation benefits under the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act (NIIA). The district court granted summary judgment to Westinghouse, and the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that under NRS 616.085, subcontractors and their employees are deemed co-employees of the principal contractor, making the NIIA the plaintiff's exclusive remedy. It rejected application of the dual capacity doctrine to allow a separate products liability claim, finding no precedent or basis to strip statutory immunity from a co-employee merely because of its additional role as elevator manufacturer and installer, consistent with prior precedent in Aragonez v. Taylor Steel Co.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case concerned a challenge by the City of Las Vegas to the constitutionality of Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 280, which requires consolidation of county and city law enforcement agencies in any county with a population of 200,000 or more where the city is the county seat. The district court granted partial summary judgment to the City, ruling that NRS 280.100 and NRS 280.201 constituted prohibited special or local legislation under the Nevada Constitution. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed in part, holding NRS 280.100 constitutional because its population classification applies prospectively to all qualifying counties and is rationally related to the goal of reducing duplication in law enforcement without creating absurd distinctions. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the funding formula in NRS 280.201(1)(a) was unconstitutional as it specified rather than classified the shares to be paid by the county and city.

criminal law