Moody v. Manny's Auto Repair

Nevada Supreme Court
110 Nev. 320, 1994 Nev. LEXIS 19, 871 P.2d 935 (1994)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landowner owes a general duty of reasonable care to all persons injured on their property, regardless of the injured person's status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. Additionally, the firefighter's rule only precludes a public safety officer's recovery when the injury is caused by the same negligent act that necessitated the officer's presence.

Facts:

David Moody, an on-duty police officer, was riding his motorcycle on the night of April 2, 1988.
Around 10:40 p.m., Moody observed a vehicle proceed through a red traffic signal.
To promptly pursue the vehicle, Moody turned his motorcycle into the entrance of a parking lot.
The parking lot was leased by Manny’s Auto Repair (Manny's) and owned by Shimon Peress.
A steel cable, which Moody alleged was unlit and unmarked, was strung across the entrance to the lot.
Moody collided with the steel cable and sustained personal injuries.

Procedural Posture:

David Moody filed a complaint against Manny's Auto Repair and Shimon Peress in the district court seeking damages for personal injuries.
The district court granted Peress's motion to dismiss.
Manny’s filed a third-party complaint against Peress.
Peress filed a motion for summary judgment, which Manny's subsequently joined.
The district court granted the summary judgment motion in favor of Manny's and Peress.
Moody, as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment 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 the common law firefighter's rule bar a police officer's negligence claim for injuries caused by a condition on a property when that condition is unrelated to the reason for the officer's presence on that property? Secondly, is a landowner's liability for injuries determined by the injured person's legal status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee?

Opinions:

Majority - Rose, C. J.

No, the firefighter's rule does not bar the officer's claim, and no, a landowner's liability is not determined by the entrant's status. The firefighter's rule is limited to instances where the negligent act that injures the public servant is the same act that required the servant's presence. Because the steel cable was unrelated to the traffic violation Moody was pursuing, the rule does not apply. Furthermore, the court abandons the traditional common law classifications of trespasser, licensee, and invitee for determining landowner liability. Instead, a landowner has a general duty to exercise reasonable care in the management of their property to avoid causing injury to others. The plaintiff's status may be a factor in assessing reasonableness but is not the determinative factor.

Analysis:

This decision significantly alters Nevada tort law in two ways. First, it clarifies and narrows the scope of the firefighter's rule, ensuring that it only applies to risks inherent in the specific emergency response, rather than providing blanket immunity for any unrelated negligence on a property. Second, and more profoundly, the court abolishes the centuries-old status-based categories for landowner liability (trespasser, licensee, invitee) and replaces them with a modern, unified standard of reasonable care. This shift aligns Nevada with a growing number of jurisdictions that prioritize foreseeability and reasonableness over the rigid and often unjust outcomes of the traditional common law framework, thereby expanding potential liability for landowners.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Moody v. Manny's Auto Repair (1994)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature