Articles

Humphries v. Eighth Judicial District Court

In recent years, litigants in Nevada have encountered ambiguity in the law when determining whether or not a plaintiff was required to name additional cotortfeasors as defendants in order to avoid the prospect of dismissal for failure to name a necessary and indispensable party. This confusion is often especially pronounced in the professional liability context where the underlying dealings between the parties may involve the interactions of multiple parties. This issue arose, in part, due to the Nevada Supreme Court's interpretation of Nevada’s comparative negligence statute (NRS 41.141). See, e.g., Café Moda, L.L.C v. Palma, 272 P.3d 137, 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 7; Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984).

Recently, the Nevada Supreme Court clarified the ambiguity surrounding this area of the law in the case of Humphries v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 129 Nev. Adv. Op. 85, 312 P.3d 484 (2013). In Humphries, the plaintiff brought a premises liability action against a casino, arguing that the casino negligently failed to protect the plaintiff against a third-party assailant who attempted to attack the plaintiff while on the casino’s premises. The plaintiff did not name the assailant as a defendant. After the lower court granted a motion compelling the plaintiff to name the assailant as a necessary party pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a), the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court. In reaching this decision, the Court sided with the traditional view that “when plaintiffs have sued a tortfeasor who is jointly and severally liable or severally liable, cotorfeasors are not necessary parties under NRCP 19(a).” In reaching this conclusion, the Humphries Court reasoned that policy considerations weighed in favor of having the casino, as an at-fault tortfeasor, bear the risk that it would not be possible to recover from the assailant, who could be beyond the reach of the court or immune to a judgment.

While the Humphries decision arose in the premises liability context, the decision has broad ramifications for any case involving multiple potential tortfeasors. In the professional liability context, the Humphries decision renders it easier for plaintiffs to strategically choose which tortfeasors to name as defendants with little likelihood of a dismissal pursuant to NRCP 19(a). Further, the decision may cause additional complications in legal malpractice cases involving a client and multiple former attorneys. In particular, due to the fact that Nevada’s contribution statute (NRS 17.225 to NRS 17.305) prohibits contribution claims between co-fiduciaries (e.g., co-counsel acting on behalf of a client), the Humphries decision could increase the risk that a single attorney could be forced to satisfy a plaintiff’s entire loss, while being prohibited from bringing a claim for contribution against the other remaining co-counsel. This latter issue remains unresolved under Nevada law. Stay tuned.

Related Practices


Find an Attorney

Each of the firm's offices include partners, associates and a professional staff dedicated to meeting the challenge of providing the firm's clients with extraordinary service.