2 - Negligence; Breach (Nevada)

Breach

The failure to perform one’s duty.

Direct (Direct / Circumstantial)

A direct breach occurs when a defendant fails to fulfill a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, and this failure directly causes harm to the plaintiff.

Circumstantial (Direct / Circumstantial)

A circumstantial breach refers to a situation where a breach of duty is established through circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence involves proving certain facts and circumstances from which a fact finder may infer other connected facts that reasonably follow according to common human experience.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

A rule of evidence which aids the plaintiff in proving the element of breach of duty when the plaintiff is unable to establish by other evidence that the defendant acted unreasonably. The doctrine proceeds upon the theory that the occurrence itself speaks of negligence and it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to show the exact circumstances whereby the defendant breached his or her duty of care. The plaintiff must prove:

1) the defendant was in complete control of the instrument that caused the harm;

2) the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence;
3) the defendant is in a better position to explain what happened; and
4) injuries of this type do not normally occur absent such negligence.

The literal interpretation is “the thing speaks for itself.”