Café Moda, LLC v. Palma
128 Nev. 78
Nev.2012Background
- NRS 41.141 governs comparative negligence and apportionment among defendants, including exceptions for intentional torts.
- Palma sued Richards (intentional tort) and Café Moda (negligence) after Richards stabbed Palma during a confrontation at Café Moda.
- The jury found Richards 80% at fault and Café Moda 20% at fault, and Palma was not comparatively negligent.
- The district court held both Richards and Café Moda jointly and severally liable for 100% of Palma’s damages under NRS 41.141.
- The Supreme Court concluded NRS 41.141 is ambiguous and must be construed to reflect the Legislature’s intent to permit apportionment between negligent and intentional tortfeasors, yielding Café Moda 20% severally liable and Richards 100% jointly and severally liable.
- The Court remanded for a modified judgment reflecting the 20% severance for Café Moda and 100% liability for Richards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NRS 41.141 permits apportionment between negligent and intentional tortfeasors | Palma advocates plain-language denial of cross-category apportionment. | Café Moda argues statute permits apportionment between negligent and intentional tortfeasors. | Ambiguous; statute permits apportionment between negligent and intentional tortfeasors. |
| How to interpret 'negligence' in NRS 41.141(4) for apportionment purposes | Palma reads 'negligence' to mean all fault by negligent defendants. | Café Moda contends 'negligence' should be read literally as negligence, excluding intentional tortfeasors from partial apportionment. | Court adopts 'negligence' meaning 'fault' to carry out apportionment consistent with Legislature's intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Candelaria, 126 Nev. 408 (2010) (de novo review of statutory construction)
- Hardy Companies, Inc. v. SNMARK, LLC, 126 Nev. 528 (2010) (legislative intent and construction of statutes)
- Great Basin Water Network v. State Eng'r, 126 Nev. 187 (2010) (interpretation of statutory design and public policy)
- Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703 (1984) (purpose of eliminating contributory negligence and joint liability considerations)
- Meridian Gold v. State, Dep’t of Taxation, 119 Nev. 630 (2003) (avoid absurd or unreasonable results in statutory construction)