Shepard v. Harrison
| Decision Date | 28 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 14721,14721 |
| Parties | Donald S. SHEPARD and Nancy Shepard, Appellants, v. John M. HARRISON, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a summary judgment and a dismissal under NRCP 41(b) in an action for property damages. Because we believe that triable issues of fact remain, we reverse and remand.
Appellants (the Shepards) and respondent Harrison owned adjacent residences in a Las Vegas neighborhood. Harrison's property was located at an elevation higher than the Shepards' property.
Harrison had a swimming pool in his backyard. A concrete terrace surrounded the pool, and a cinder block wall enclosed the rectangular pool area on all four sides. One side of the wall ran along the boundary between the parties' properties. A patio was located between Harrison's house and the swimming pool area, at an elevation higher than the swimming pool area.
A rainstorm struck Las Vegas on October 20, 1978. Harrison woke up on the morning of that day to find that his swimming pool area was some three feet under water, and that more water was pouring "like a waterfall" from the patio area into the swimming pool area. Some 45 minutes later, the water level had increased to approximately 4 1/2 feet. At this time the rear portion of the cinder block wall broke, and a huge quantity of water cascaded into the Shepards' backyard.
As a result of this incident, the Shepards filed this lawsuit against Harrison, alleging essentially that Harrison had negligently maintained his property, and claiming substantial property damage. Harrison obtained a summary judgment on the Shepards' complaint, but the Shepards obtained permission to amend their complaint to assert only causes of action not based on negligence, i.e., nuisance, trespass and strict liability for ultrahazardous activity.
The matter eventually proceeded to trial on the causes of action not based on negligence. After the Shepards presented their case, however, Harrison obtained a dismissal of the amended complaint pursuant to NRCP 41(b). The trial court entered judgment for Harrison based on the previous summary judgment on the negligence cause of action and the NRCP 41(b) dismissal on the other causes of action. This appeal followed.
We have frequently emphasized the strict standards which should be applied by the district courts in deciding motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss under NRCP 41(b). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and no genuine issue remains for trial. Cladianos v. Coldwell Banker, 100 Nev. 138, 676 P.2d 804 (1984); Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Pico, 99 Nev. 15, 656 P.2d 849 (1983); Nehls v. Leonard, 97 Nev. 325, 630 P.2d 258 (1981). Where an issue of material fact exists, summary judgment should not be granted. Casarotto v. Mortensen, 99 Nev. 392, 663 P.2d 352 (1983). The district court should exercise great care in granting summary judgment. Leslie v. J.A. Tiberti Constr. Co., 99 Nev. 494, 664 P.2d 963 (1983); Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Pico, supra. A litigant has the right to trial where there is the slightest doubt as to the facts. Stone v. Mission Bay Mortgage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Safeway, Inc.
...Hubert v. Werner, 101 Nev. 193, 698 P.2d 426 (1985); Whalen v. State of Nevada, 100 Nev. 192, 679 P.2d 248 (1984); Shepard v. Harrison, 100 Nev. 178, 678 P.2d 670 (1984); Stone v. Mission Bay Mortgage Co., 99 Nev. 802, 672 P.2d 629 (1983); Oak Grove Inv. v. Bell & Gossett Co., 99 Nev. 616, ......
-
Russ v. General Motors Corp.
...the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and no genuine issues of fact remain for trial. Shepard v. Harrison, 100 Nev. 178, 179-80, 678 P.2d 670, 672 (1984). The party opposing summary judgment is entitled to have the evidence and all inferences from the evidence accepte......
-
Joynt v. California Hotel & Casino
...fact: "A party's negligence becomes a question of law only when the evidence will support no other inference." Shepard v. Harrison, 100 Nev. 178, 180, 678 P.2d 670, 672 (1984); see Nehls v. Leonard, 97 Nev. 325, 328, 630 P.2d 258, 260 In a negligence action, the plaintiff has the burden of ......
-
Anderson v. Baltrusaitis
...P.2d at 1380. In Nevada, a party's negligence is generally considered an issue of fact for the jury to decide. Shepard v. Harrison, 100 Nev. 178, 180, 678 P.2d 670, 672 (1984); see also NRS 41.141(2) (judge shall instruct jury to determine comparative negligence of the parties). Under the c......