Category Archives: Uncategorized

Latest Posts

Archives

Categories

Tags Cloud

The Role of Personal History in Injury Cases

The backgrounds of the people involved in personal injury litigation can sometimes play a significant role in the case’s outcome. To guard against undue prejudice, courts typically won’t allow evidence or testimony about a party’s background unless it has some relevance to the case. But attorneys can find ways to make seemingly unrelated matters suddenly relevant again. For example, a decade-old conviction for fraud may not be relevant to whether a driver was responsible for a car accident, but it might be important for attacking the driver’s honesty if that is at issue. Here are a few examples of how personal history can play a role in a case.

  • Limiting the scope of potential damages. A longstanding principle in civil litigation is that the defendant “takes the plaintiff as-is.” This so-called “eggshell skull rule” generally means that the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the full scope of the injuries for which the defendant is responsible, even if the nature of the injuries are significantly worse as a consequence of an existing infirmity in the plaintiff. At the same time, defendants are not responsible for compensating plaintiffs for injuries that already existed at the time of the accident. If the plaintiff was already dealing with a serious injury, the defendant likely will not be held responsible for the costs associated with that injury.
  • Supporting or undermining arguments. A party’s personal history can raise doubts about the merits of arguments that are not adequately supported by concrete evidence. It can also help to fill in gaps in evidence to strengthen an argument. For example, a driver who left a bar and got into an accident might argue that she “hardly drinks and never drives drunk.” The plaintiff might use the plaintiff’s history of DUI convictions, reputation for alcohol abuse, or confirmed habit of drinking and driving to show that the defendant isn’t telling the truth.
  • Creating or losing sympathy. Events in a person’s past can have effects on a case that are hard to quantify. Courts are often reluctant to allow evidence that serves little purpose other than to turn a jury’s opinion about a person, but as in the example of the fraud conviction, such evidence can be relevant for important reasons and have consequences beyond the narrow purpose for which it was introduced.

For more than 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has represented clients in personal injury cases. Our team understands how to help clients get the most out of the facts of their case, and how to address potential problems that may be lurking in a client’s past. For a free attorney consultation about your case call us today at 702-388-4476 or send us a request through our site.

Seeking Workers’ Compensation Coverage from Former Employers

Someone who has suffered a work-related injury or disease ideally gets covered by an existing employer’s insurance. But injuries and diseases are not always immediately obvious, even if their cause is clearly work-related. Sometimes the need for insurance coverage only comes up after leaving the job where the problem arose. In such cases, the individual’s current employer (assuming the individual is still working) may not be responsible for providing workers’ compensation coverage for the problem.

Instead, the injured person may need to seek compensation under a former employer’s insurance. Such cases involve a number of challenges that are best addressed with the help of a workers’ compensation attorney. Here are a few examples of the kinds of challenges the injured worker can expect to face:

  • The problem of proof. Someone who discovers an injury or disease after leaving a job will need to prove that it was related to a specific job and not some other cause. Insurers are likely to deny claims for injuries that are not clearly tied to a work-related incident. Proof can be especially challenging in cases of slowly developing disease, like cancer. Even if the sick person was exposed to a carcinogen at work, the insurer likely will argue that the cancer could have been caused by something else and therefore isn’t covered.
  • Lack of cooperation from the former employer. Related to the issue of proof is the former employer’s potential lack of interest in the case, or worse the employer’s unavailability due to no longer being in business. Quite often the details of a work-related injury need to come from the employer itself. If the employer no longer is in business, or key witnesses are no longer working there, gathering all the necessary background information may be more difficult.
  • Technical errors. The workers’ compensation system is highly regimented with tight deadlines and specific procedures that must be followed to receive benefits. Insurers seize on technical violations to deny claims. Seeking coverage for an illness or injury after deadlines have passed may give an insurer the excuse they need to deny the claim. Although a technical fault may not mean the end of the claims process, it may mean starting a dispute with the insurer.

Given the added complexity of submitting workers’ compensation claims against former employees, people who find themselves in this situation should seek professional assistance with the process. For more than 40 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has helped people in the Las Vegas area resolve their workers’ compensation claims disputes. For a free attorney consultation about your case, please give us a call today at 702-388-4476. We can also be reached through our contacts page.

Nevada’s Elder Abuse Laws

Nevada’s population of people over the age of 65 has steadily increased over the years, thanks to an aging population and the popularity of our warm climate as a retirement destination. Unfortunately, the elderly can be susceptible to abuse and neglect by people who live with or care for them. Nevada law provides a range of options for someone who is the victim of elder abuse to seek compensation.

Three causes of action in elder abuse cases

Nevada’s elder abuse law, NRS 41.1395, protects anyone who is 60 years of age or older by providing that an injured plaintiff may recover twice their actual damages and, in some situations, attorneys’ fees. To recover double damages, an older person must have suffered a personal injury or death that is caused by abuse or neglect, or suffered a loss of money or property caused by exploitation. Attorney’s fees can be awarded in cases where the plaintiff shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the person who is liable for damages acted with recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice.

The statute provides three potential causes of action:

1. Abuse.

Abuse involves the willful and unjustified infliction of pain, injury, or mental anguish, or deprivation of food, shelter, clothing, or services that are necessary to maintain the older person’s physical or mental health. NRS 41.1395(4)(a). The requirement that an act be willful is an important limitation for abuse claims. It is not enough that someone be merely negligent. Some cases may also hinge on whether a given service was “necessary” for the wellbeing of the older person. For example, the amount of food that must be provided to maintain the health of an infirm person may be difficult to establish.

2. Exploitation.

Exploitation has two components. NRS 41.1395(4)(b). First, the defendant must be someone in a position of trust, such as a caregiver or family member, or must hold a power of attorney or legal guardianship with respect to the older person. Second, the defendant must have taken money, property, or other assets from the older person. The taking can be through an act of deception, intimidation, or undue influence, or can simply be an act of conversion.

In either case, the taking must be intended to permanently deprive the older person of use and benefit of the taken asset. A clear example would be someone taking money from an older person’s wallet. But the statute provides that “undue influence” does not include “the normal influence that one member of a family has over another.” In other words, to show undue influence there must be something more than, for example, a family member making poor choices with the older person’s money.

3. Neglect.

A neglect claim can be brought only against someone who has assumed responsibility for the care of an older person, such as a home care provider. The defendant has to have expressly acknowledged his or her assumption of responsibility, verbally or through a written contract. The defendant must have failed “to provide food, shelter, clothing or services within the scope of the person’s responsibility or obligation, which are necessary to maintain the physical or mental health of the older person.” NRS 41.1395(4)(c).

The specific requirements in the definition of neglect that may complicate a lawsuit. The “express acknowledgment” requirement may pose challenges outside the context of contracted services. For informal arrangements, determining when someone has assumed responsibility for an older person may be subject to different opinions. Another issue in such contexts will be the scope of a caregiver’s responsibilities.

GGRM can help you pursue an elder abuse claim

For over 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has helped clients in the Las Vegas area recover for personal injuries. If you or a loved one has suffered elder abuse and you have questions about your legal rights, our attorneys are happy to review your case. Call us today for a free consultation at 702-388-4476, or reach us through our contact page.

Filing Lawsuits Against Out-of-State Defendants in Nevada

Filing Lawsuits Against Out-of-State Defendants in Nevada

Tens of millions of visitors come to Las Vegas each year, many of whom come from other states. Accidents involving out-of-town visitors raise questions about how someone who lives in Las Vegas might file a lawsuit against someone in another state. Before a court can hear a case against someone it must have jurisdiction over that person. By default, each state’s courts have personal jurisdiction over the residents of their states. But establishing personal jurisdiction over someone who does not reside in the state requires a more nuanced analysis.

The service of process requirement

Nevada’s courts follow federal due process rules for establishing personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. NRS 14.065. The first thing to understand about personal jurisdiction is that it requires delivery of service of process on the defendant. Service of process simply means that the defendant in the lawsuit is provided with a summons and a copy of the plaintiff’s complaint so the defendant will have an opportunity to respond.

Personal service of process requires giving the summons and complaint to the defendant personally, leaving them at the defendant’s home “with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein,” or by giving them to the defendant’s authorized agent (typically, a lawyer). Nev. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(6). Complying with this requirement can be harder than it sounds, because many defendants avoid being served with process or are hard to track down. Nevada law provides that a defendant who hides behind a locked gate can be served by mail with court approval, but generally speaking service can’t be completed by mail. NRS 14.090. Serving process on an out-of-state defendant often requires hiring a professional process server located where the defendant resides.

Car crashes and personal jurisdiction

Nevada law provides an exception for people involved in car crashes. Nevada law deems anyone who drives in the state to have appointed the Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles as his or her attorney for purposes of serving process. In these cases the plaintiff need only submit a copy of the summons and complaint, along with a $5 fee, to the DMV, with a copy sent by mail to the defendant’s address as provided at the time of the accident. NRS 14.070.

Establishing specific jurisdiction over an individual

Serving process on a defendant isn’t enough to establish a court’s personal jurisdiction. Three things must be true for a Nevada court to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state individual:

  1. The out-of-state defendant must have purposefully directed his or her activities or consummated some transaction with a Nevada resident, or otherwise “purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities” in Nevada, “thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”
  2. The plaintiff’s claim must arise from the defendant’s activities that are related to Nevada.
  3. Exercising jurisdiction must “comport with fair play and substantial justice.”

Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2008).

The plaintiff is responsible for showing the first two prongs are true, while the defendant can argue that the fairness standard of the third prong makes exercise of personal jurisdiction inappropriate.

Most cases where personal jurisdiction is tricky involve defendants who have never physically stepped foot in the jurisdiction. For personal injury cases where the defendant who is allegedly liable for hurting the plaintiff, it can be enough that the defendant caused the injury while in Nevada. Of course, if the injury took place outside of Nevada, establishing personal jurisdiction may be more difficult, because the defendant has not “directed activities” at Nevada. In those cases, filing a lawsuit in the jurisdiction where the defendant lives, or where the accident took place, may be necessary.

Let GGRM help you sort through jurisdiction questions

For over 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has helped clients in the Las Vegas area recover for personal injuries. If you have been injured by an out-of-state individual, our attorneys can help you sort through your options. Call us today for a free consultation at 702-388-4476, or reach us through our contact page.

First Responders and Third-Party Negligence

First Responders and Third-Party Negligence

First responders face a lot of risks on the job. Firefighters sometimes have to enter burning buildings. Police officers sometimes get into physical altercations with suspects. But sometimes the risks they face are not of the typical sort one might expect. The firefighter rushing into a burning building could fall on a badly maintained staircase. Or a police officer could be attacked by a dog that isn’t properly restrained. In cases where third party neglect causes an injury, what legal recourse is available to the injured first responder?

The “firefighter’s rule” limits personal injury lawsuits

Nevada limits when a first responder can sue a third party for personal injuries the first responder suffers while responding to an emergency. The so-called “firefighter’s rule” is based on the idea that emergency personnel are public servants paid to take risks in the course of their duties. Essentially, the rule assumes that first responders assume the risk of injury. In Nevada, the rule originated in the state Supreme Court decision in Steelman v. Lind, 97 Nev. 425 (1981).

In response to Steelman, the Nevada legislature created an exemption to the rule’s default bar against recovery. Under NRS 41.139, a first responder may sue for personal injury if the injury was caused by the defendant’s willful act or lack of ordinary care or skill in the management of their property and one of the following things was true:

  1. The conduct causing the injury occurred after the defendant knew or should have known about the presence of the first responder on the property.
  2. The person intended to cause the injury (for example, by setting a trap).
  3. The conduct violated a statute, ordinance or regulation that was intended to protect the first responder, or that prohibits resistance or requires compliance with the first responder’s instructions.
  4. The injury arose as a consequence of arson.

In Moody v. Manny’s Auto Repair, 110 Nev. 320, 326 (1994), the Nevada Supreme Court interpreted NRS 41.139 as a narrowing of the firefighter’s rule’s bar against recovery to “those instances when the negligent act which injures the public servant is the same act which required the public servant’s presence.” In Moody the question was whether the firefighter’s rule prevented a police officer for injuries caused by a cable strung across the entrance to the defendant’s parking lot. Officer Moody had turned into the lot as a shortcut while in pursuit of a driver who had run a red light. Id. at 322. Because the event causing the officer’s presence on the property wasn’t related to the thing that caused the injury, the officer’s suit could go forward.

File a workers’ compensation claim

Regardless of whether the firefighter’s rule prevents a civil lawsuit, a first responder who is injured while on the job should file a workers’ compensation claim. Although the benefits of  workers’ compensation insurance might be substantially less than what could potentially be recovered in a personal injury lawsuit, the fact remains that recovering damages through civil litigation can be slow. Workers’ comp coverage ensures that injured first responders get the care they need without going into personal debt.

In cases where a personal injury suit is an option, the workers’ comp insurance carrier likely will require the first responder to agree to some form of subrogation. Insurance subrogation allows insurers to recover their costs from third parties who are responsible for the insured worker’s injuries. When considering whether a personal injury suit is a good idea, it’s worth evaluating how an insurer’s subrogation rights may limit personal recovery.

GGRM serves Las Vegas first responders

For over 45 years the law firm of Greenman Goldberg Raby Martinez has proudly served the police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel of the Las Vegas area. If you have questions about how Nevada’s firefighter’s rule affects your legal options, our attorneys are here to help.  To speak to an attorney, call us today at 702-388-4476, or ask us to call you by leaving a note on our contact page.

EMS and Good Samaritan Laws

EMS and Good Samaritan Laws

Good Samaritan laws came about to free EMS providers from hesitation and fear over being held liable for actions taken while providing emergency care. In response, many states enacted immunity statutes that protect EMS providers from lawsuits for actions within the scope of their employment; some Good Samaritan laws even provide protection for providers when they are off-duty. These laws vary from state to state, but they generally provide this protection as long as EMS providers: are not grossly negligent; provide emergency care; and act in good faith.

An immunity statute does not actually prevent an individual from filing a lawsuit; rather, it simply makes it more difficult for the plaintiff to recover. It accomplishes this by raising the threshold the plaintiff must meet to prove the elements of negligence in his or her case.  In the absence of an immunity statute (roughly half the states have them in one form or another), the standard legal principles of negligence applies. In other words, the EMS provider would be treated no differently than a passing motorist.

An immunity statute does not change the basic elements of the tort of negligence; instead, it raises the standard required for EMS providers to be found negligent. In other words, it compels the plaintiff to prove that the defendant’s conduct was even more reckless than what would ordinarily be considered negligence. States have defined this heightened category of negligence in a variety of ways, including: gross negligence, gross/intentional conduct, willful/wanton negligence and reckless disregard or misconduct.

It’s important to remember that most immunity laws only apply when the EMS provider is acting within the scope of their employment. Generally, this also means that for the immunity to apply, the emergency care falls within the provider’s scope of training. Since Good Samaritan statutes vary from state to state, it’s advised that any questions or confusion be brought to an experienced attorney for clarification.

Nevada has strong protections in place for EMS providers. N.R.S. 41.500 reads:

“Except as otherwise provided in NRS 41.505, any person in this State who renders emergency care or assistance in an emergency, gratuitously and in good faith, except for a person who is performing community service as a result of disciplinary action pursuant to any provision in title 54 of NRS, is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission, not amounting to gross negligence, by that person in rendering the emergency care or assistance or as a result of any act or failure to act, not amounting to gross negligence, to provide or arrange for further medical treatment for the injured person.”

NRS 41.505 does not refer to EMS; rather, it pertains to physicians, physician assistants, nurses, and dentists. Basically, minus some act of gross negligence, EMS workers are protected in Nevada for any actions committed in regards to emergency response.

EMS Providers and Patient Refusal

EMS Providers and Patient Refusal

A patient refusing medical transport or care can be a stressful situation for all involved. It’s essential that EMS providers be aware of the applicable laws and protocols to avoid confusing and even dangerous situations for both the patient and provider.

The Department of Transportation has set forth the standards for EMS since 1970. These standards state that all patients have the right to accept or refuse care after being informed about the care to be provided and the accompanying risks. In other words, a patient refusal is intended to be the result of an informed decision. This is an application of the concept of informed consent that has become universal to all healthcare providers.

There is one important exception to the patient right of refusal: in an emergency situation where the patient is incapacitated, the EMS provider may treat him or her with emergency care based on the assumption that under the circumstances a normal person would consent. This is known as the doctrine of implied consent.

There are two major issues that can muddy the waters when it comes to a patient’s ability to give informed consent: capacity to make decisions and age. Generally, an individual is considered capable of making an informed decision if they are able to understand the benefits and risks of both the proposed treatment and no treatment. This is simple enough in theory, but in practice it can be an extremely difficult evaluation to make in the field. For a patient to be judged incapacitated (in which case implied consent would kick in), it must be an emergency situation and two conditions must be met. First, the patient is incapacitated due to shock or trauma and is unable to make an informed decision. Secondly, a life-threatening disease or injury that requires immediate treatment must be present where further delay would result in death or impairment. If these requirements are met, the EMS provider can suspend the doctrine of informed consent and transport the patient even if this is against the patient’s wishes.

 

Who’s at Fault in Lane Change Trucking Accidents?

It’s important to share the road responsibly. Whether you’re a bicyclist, motorist, or big rig operator, certain dangers are imminent if you don’t respect the potential perils that can happen on roadways. Everyone’s trying to get from here to there and eventually, vehicles are going to need to change lanes. In cars, blind spots are dangerous enough, but for big rigs, the simple act of changing lanes can cause risks to everyone.

If you’ve been involved in an accident with a big rig, call on the assistance of Las Vegas truck accident attorneys to help you legally establish fault immediately.

Here’s what you should know:

Common Causes of Lane Change Accidents

Commercial and non-commercial drivers are often guilty of causing lane change accidents for the same reasons. The difference is, the damage delivered by a big rig can often be exponentially more impactful than if two everyday vehicles collide on the road.

These accidents often result from:

  • Failure to use turn signals
  • Excessive speeding
  • Making a lane change in an intersection
  • Weaving in-and-out of traffic
  • Distracted operators (talking on the phone, texting, messing with the radio, eating, and drinking)
  • Driver fatigue
  • Intoxication

Two Main Types of Lane Change Accidents

Although by nature, accidents are unpredictable, accidents with trucks typically fall into one of two categories:

  • Rear-end collisions, often caused when the car behind the semi is unable to stop in time because the driver’s view of the road ahead becomes blocked.
  • Side-swipe incidents, which often cause the most severe damage.

Proving Fault in a Trucking Accident Case

Generally speaking, there are a few main elements when it comes to proving fault in any vehicle accident, including collisions with semi-trucks.

  1. Duty of Care. The operator of the big rig must exercise duty of care. In other words, the driver of the big rig is legally bound to drive their vehicle in a reasonably safe manner.

Your Las Vegas truck accident attorneys will seek ways to prove the other driver’s negligence, looking for evidence the accident was not your fault.

  1. Eyewitness Testimony.Given the fact many big rig incidents occur on busy roadways, there are often eyewitnesses. Obtaining testimonies from others who saw the accident take place can be imperative to your case.
  2. Injury.If you’re able to prove your injuries resulted from the accident, you may be able to legally make claims against the driver of the big rig to recover:
  • Costs of medical care
  • Lost income
  • Pain and suffering

You’ll likely need your doctors’ help to prove your injuries resulted from the accident.

Contact the Las Vegas Truck Accident Attorneys of GGRM

If you’ve been involved in an accident with an 18-wheeler, seek representation from experienced Las Vegas truck accident attorneys right away. Greenman, Goldberg, Raby and Martinez have been helping Southern Nevadans’ receive just compensation for over 45 years. Call 702-388-GGRM (4476) for a free consultation today.

Liability in a Pool Accident Explained by a Las Vegas Injury Lawyer

Swimming pools provide a great way to beat the Las Vegas heat, and most of the time, you can swim and enjoy yourself without incident. Unfortunately, however, some days at the pool can result in accident and injury. When that’s the case, you may wonder who’s at fault and whether you may be able to receive compensation to help pay your medical bills and other expenses.

Each case is different, and a Las Vegas injury lawyer can advise you on the merits of taking legal action if you’ve been injured in a swimming pool accident.

Who’s responsible?

In some cases, you may be responsible for your own injuries. If, for example, you were engaging in horseplay and suffered an injury as a result, the fault may be your own. However, if you became injured because the pool area was improperly maintained then the owner or operator of the pool may be liable.

Sometimes liability is shared, and you as well as another party are legally responsible for your injuries. Nevada has a comparative fault law that allows you to recover compensation as long as your liability is not above 50 percent. For example, if you’re found to be 25 percent responsible for your accident, you may be able to recover damages, but they’ll be reduced by 25 percent.

Public pools

Generally, the owner and operator of a public pool is responsible for maintaining safe premises for guests who have permission to be on the property. It’s their responsibility to keep the pool in good repair and make sure the proper chemicals are being used to keep the water safe and clean. It’s also their responsibility to ensure lifeguards are properly trained and able to enforce pool rules.

In some cases, equipment such as water slides could be defective and the manufacturer could be held liable. However, if the owner and operator of the pool knew about the defect and failed to take corrective action they could be held liable in the case.

Residential pools

Homeowners can be held responsible for injuries that take place in and around their pools. They’re responsible for creating a safe environment for their guests as well as taking steps to keep people from trespassing on their property and becoming injured in their pool.

Since a pool can create what’s legally known as an “attractive nuisance,” a homeowner should take steps to secure their pool behind a four-sided fence and have alarms and other safety measures in place. This can prevent children from coming into the pool area without permission and suffering an injury.

Contact the Las Vegas Injury Lawyers of GGRM

Pool injuries can be serious or even deadly, ranging from slips and falls to drownings. If you or a loved one has been injured in a swimming pool accident, contact a Las Vegas injury lawyer at Greenman, Goldberg, Raby and Martinez for a free consultation. Call 702-388-4476 to get started today.

Is A Lawsuit Inevitable Offer

Auto Lawyers in Las Vegas Discuss Teen Driving Laws in Nevada

If you have a teenager who is eager to earn a driver’s license, then a classic push-and-pull is probably underway in your home: he or she is desperate to get behind the wheel of a car while you’d like to steer the child back to baby shoes.

Deep down, you know you cannot delay the inevitable forever. You can provide the guidance they need to comply with Nevada laws and remain safe.

Follow the guidance of the most experienced auto lawyers in Las Vegas, Greenman, Goldberg, Raby and Martinez, to ensure your teen follows the rules of the road.

First, your teen needs a permit to drive

As your teen probably has already told you (500 times), he or she is eligible to receive an instruction permit when they’re 15 ½ years old. (And yes; the state counts those six months precisely.) At a local department of motor vehicles facility, your teen must provide:

  • A U.S.-issued birth certificate
  • A Social Security card
  • Two documents that provide proof of address

Then your teen needs driving experience

Teen Student Driver

The fun part for your teen is chalking up 50 hours of behind-the-wheel driving experience. To help prepare you, the auto lawyers in Las Vegas at Greenman, Goldberg, Raby and Martinez recommend the Parents Supervised Driving Guide, which contains detailed lessons and driving tips.

This guide also will remind you while your teen accumulates the 50 hours, he or she cannot go it alone; he or she must be accompanied at all times by someone who:

  • Is at least 21 years old
  • Is a licensed driver
  • Has been licensed for at least one year

Ten of the 50 hours must be completed in darkness, and all the hours must be logged with the dates and time duration of each behind-the-wheel experience. The DMV offers downloadable log sheets and it must be presented at the DMV before your teen can take the skills test – the precursor to earning a driver’s license. The DMV will accept no other log, and it must be signed by a parent or guardian.

Your teen must have a clean record to apply for a license

Once your teen is 16 years old, he or she can apply for a state driver’s license. In addition, the six months preceding the application, he or she must:

  • Hold an instruction permit
  • Incur no at-fault car accidents
  • Incur no moving violation convictions
  • Incur no alcohol or drug convictions

Auto lawyers in Las Vegas prepare you for the driving skills test

The auto lawyers in Las Vegas at Greenman, Goldberg, Raby and Martinez remind you to accompany your teen to the DMV to take the driving skills test. You’ll have to sign a financial responsibility statement on his or her behalf – and bring a registered, insured vehicle. Your teen also must provide their:

  • Instruction permit
  • Proof of identity
  • Driver’s education certificate
  • The DMV-sanctioned log sheets or phone app, ready to print

Assuming your teen passes the skills test, your journey will be complete and he or she will become a licensed driver in the state of Nevada. Along the way, the auto lawyers in Las Vegas at Greenman, Goldberg, Raby and Martinez know you may have questions. We understand what it’s like to steer your child from a car seat to the driver’s seat – and we’ll do everything we can to help make this rite of passage as painless as possible. If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident call 702-388-4476 for a free consultation.

Steps To Take After a Car Accident Offer