Before Justices Douglas, Hardesty, and Parraguirre. Opinion by Justice Parraguirre.
In this appeal, the Court addressed NRS 41.141, Nevada’s comparative negligence statute, and whether it allowed for the apportionment of a damages award between negligent and intentional tortfeasors. Concluding that NRS 41.141 is ambiguous and turning to the legislative history and intent, the Court determined that “negligence” in the statute meant “fault”. As such, liability could be apportioned between negligent and intentional tortfeasors. The negligent tortfeasor was severally liable up to the level of fault found by the jury; the intentional tortfeasor was jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of damage. Reversed and remanded for the district court to enter a modified judgment. (Kerry S. Doyle, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
