Understanding Negligent Security Laws in Las Vegas
Negligent security cases arise when individuals are harmed due to inadequate security measures taken by property owners, exposing them to foreseeable risks. Understanding the laws that apply to these claims is crucial for those seeking compensation for injuries resulting.
Individuals who believe they have suffered harm due to negligent security should consult an experienced and trusted Las Vegas, NV negligent security attorney. They can assess the circumstances, establish liability, provide guidance on your options, and pursue compensation on your behalf.
Nevada’s Negligent Security Laws
Negligent security constitutes a form of civil tort liability rooted in both Nevada common law and case law. Nevada Revised Statute 651.015 specifically addresses hotel operators, holding innkeepers liable if harm from an event is foreseeable and the owner fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it.
“…2. An owner or keeper of any hotel, inn, motel, motor court, boardinghouse or lodging house is civilly liable for the death or injury of a patron or other person on the premises caused by another person who is not an employee under the control or supervision of the owner or keeper if:
(a) The wrongful act which caused the death or injury was foreseeable; and
(b) The owner or keeper failed to take reasonable precautions against the foreseeable wrongful act.
Ê The court shall determine as a matter of law whether the wrongful act was foreseeable and whether the owner or keeper had a duty to take reasonable precautions against the foreseeable wrongful act of the person who caused the death or injury.
3. For the purposes of this section, a wrongful act is not foreseeable unless:
(a) The owner or keeper failed to exercise due care for the safety of the patron or other person on the premises; or
(b) Prior incidents of similar wrongful acts occurred on the premises and the owner or keeper had notice or knowledge of those incidents.”
Meanwhile, Nevada premises liability law extends its application to all property and business operators, mandating that they adopt reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm. Premises liability has developed through case law and Nevada Statute 41.141, which addresses comparative negligence.
“1. In any action to recover damages for death or injury to persons or for injury to property in which comparative negligence is asserted as a defense, the comparative negligence of the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s decedent does not bar a recovery if that negligence was not greater than the negligence or gross negligence of the parties to the action against whom recovery is sought.”
Business owners, therefore, are held to a heightened standard of care but are not automatically liable for third-party actions. The business owner’s negligent security must have contributed to the events responsible for your injuries.
What Is Negligent Security?
Negligent security refers to a property owner’s failure to take reasonable security measures that could have prevented a criminal act such as:
- Assault
- Robbery
- Sexual assault
- Homicide
- Kidnapping
- Carjacking
These crimes may occur in parking garages, hotels, apartment buildings, nightclubs, shopping malls, and other public or semi-public areas. If proper lighting, locks, cameras, guards, or access controls were absent or defective, and that failure contributed to the crime, the property owner may be considered negligent.
Nevada’s Negligent Security Laws
Legal Basis for Negligent Security Claims in Nevada
In Nevada, property owners owe different levels of care depending on the status of the person on the premises:
- Invitees (such as customers or hotel guests) are owed the highest duty of care. Owners must inspect, maintain, and warn about unsafe conditions—including foreseeable criminal activity.
- Licensees (such as social guests) are owed a lesser duty, but owners must still warn them about known dangers.
- Trespassers are owed minimal care, though landowners may not intentionally harm them.
Key Elements of Negligent Security
Common Examples of Negligent Security in Las Vegas
Negligent security can take many forms, such as:
- Broken or missing security cameras
- Lack of trained security personnel in busy areas
- Poorly lit parking lots or stairwells
- Faulty door locks in hotels or apartment complexes
- Unsecured entrances in buildings with limited access
- Failure to respond to threats or trespassers
- Ignoring past reports of violence or harassment
These conditions are particularly dangerous in areas like:
- Casinos
- Nightclubs and bars
- Apartment complexes
- Parking garages and lots
- Hotels and motels
- Shopping centers
- College campuses
- Concert and event venues
Statute of Limitations in Nevada
In Las Vegas, the statute of limitations for filing a negligent security lawsuit is generally two years from the date of the injury or incident (NRS 11.190(4)(e)). Victims should act quickly, as delay can result in lost evidence or a complete bar to recovery. There may be shorter deadlines if the claim involves a public entity.
Role of Comparative Negligence
Nevada follows a modified comparative negligence rule under NRS 41.141. If the victim is partially at fault (for example, by being intoxicated or ignoring warnings), damages may be reduced.
- If the victim is found to be more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover any damages.
- If the victim is 50% or less at fault, their compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if a casino patron is found to be 30% at fault for their fall, their damages would be reduced by 30%.
Here are examples of how this could apply in Las Vegas negligent security cases:
Assault at a Nightclub While Intoxicated
A patron is attacked in a nightclub parking lot. The club had no security personnel and poor lighting. However, the victim was visibly intoxicated, started an argument with strangers, and ignored repeated warnings from staff to leave with an escort.
- Victim fault: Initiated confrontation, ignored safety advice
- Venue fault: Failed to provide adequate lighting and security
- Result: A court may assign 40% fault to the victim, reducing damages by that amount
Trespassing into a Restricted Hotel Area
A hotel guest wanders into an employee-only area through an unlocked door and is assaulted. The hotel failed to lock the door or post warning signs, despite previous incidents.
- Victim fault: Entered a clearly unauthorized or restricted area
- Hotel fault: Failed to secure or restrict access despite known risks
- Result: Victim may be found 50% at fault and still recover damages, reduced by half
Key Elements of Negligent Security
In Nevada, negligent security cases are rooted in the principles of premises liability. Property owners owe a duty of care to maintain a reasonably safe environment for visitors. A negligent security claim may arise, when security measures fall short, leading to foreseeable harm. Key elements of such cases include:
Foreseeability
To establish negligence, it must be demonstrated that the property owner or manager reasonably foresaw the potential for criminal activities on the premises. This could include prior criminal incidents in the area or a history of security concerns.
Breach of Duty
Plaintiffs (injury victims) must show that the property owner or manager breached their duty of care by failing to implement reasonable security measures. This could involve inadequate lighting, insufficient surveillance, or failure to hire security personnel.
Causation
There must be a direct link between the inadequate security measures and the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Establishing causation is essential to proving the property owner’s liability.
Damages
Plaintiffs must demonstrate actual damages, such as physical injuries, emotional distress, or financial losses resulting from the inadequate security.