Davies v. Butler
602 P.2d 605, 1979 Nev. LEXIS 656, 95 Nev. 763 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's contributory negligence is not a defense and does not reduce recovery when a defendant's actions constitute willful or wanton misconduct, as such conduct falls outside the scope of Nevada's comparative negligence statute.
Facts:
- John Davies was selected as an initiate for the Sundowners, a social 'drinking club' associated with the University of Nevada, Reno.
- The initiation took place over several days and involved activities centered on the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
- During the 'final ceremony' on October 11, 1975, club members administered large quantities of alcohol, including 190-proof 'Ever-clear', to Davies and other initiates within a 20-30 minute period.
- Witnesses testified that Davies was physically struck, kicked, held against a wall, and had a bottle forced into his mouth when he appeared unable to stand on his own.
- Club members were aware of the potential dangers, as an initiate from the previous year had been hospitalized for alcohol poisoning.
- After the ceremony, Davies and the other initiates were placed in the bed of a pickup truck to be driven to the desert.
- During the drive, it was discovered Davies had stopped breathing. He was later pronounced dead at a hospital from alcoholic poisoning.
Procedural Posture:
- John T. and Billie J. Davies (plaintiffs) filed a wrongful death action against the Sundowners club and nine of its members in a Nevada district court (trial court).
- The defendants asserted affirmative defenses, including the decedent's contributory negligence and assumption of risk.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of all defendants.
- The district court entered a judgment on the verdict in favor of the defendants.
- The Davies filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- The Davies (appellants) appealed the judgment and the denial of their post-trial motions to the Supreme Court of Nevada.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Nevada's comparative negligence statute, which allows for the comparison of a plaintiff's negligence with a defendant's negligence or gross negligence, permit a plaintiff's contributory negligence to reduce recovery for injuries caused by a defendant's willful or wanton misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Mowbray, C. J.
No. Nevada's comparative negligence statute was not intended to abrogate the long-standing rule that contributory negligence is not a defense to a defendant's willful or wanton misconduct. The court reasoned that 'willful or wanton misconduct' is different in kind, not merely in degree, from 'gross negligence.' While the statute explicitly includes 'gross negligence' as a type of fault to be compared, its silence on willful or wanton misconduct indicates the legislature's intent to leave the common law rule intact for conduct that more closely approaches an intentional wrong. The court also found that the trial court committed reversible error by giving the jury misleading instructions regarding the decedent's consent and intoxication, which failed to account for the possibility that his capacity to consent or act voluntarily was diminished by the defendants' actions.
Dissenting - Barter, J.
Yes, implicitly. The dissent would affirm the jury's verdict, arguing that the trial court did not commit reversible error. It contends that the jury instruction on intentional harm, while perhaps 'semantically less desirable,' adequately conveyed the necessary legal principle. Furthermore, the dissent views the instructions on intoxication as a correct statement of law and argues that any error in the instruction regarding consent to battery was harmless and did not affect the substantial rights of the parties. The dissent concludes that the appellants received a fair trial and the verdict should not be overturned on narrow technical grounds.
Analysis:
This decision preserves the critical distinction between negligence-based torts and those involving a higher level of culpability approaching intentional harm. By carving out willful and wanton misconduct from the comparative fault analysis, the court ensures that defendants who engage in such extreme behavior cannot mitigate their liability by pointing to the plaintiff's own negligence. This maintains a quasi-punitive element for highly culpable conduct, preventing juries from apportioning fault where a defendant's actions demonstrate a reckless disregard for human life or safety. The ruling solidifies a two-tiered system in Nevada tort law: negligence and gross negligence are subject to comparative fault, while willful and wanton misconduct is not.
