 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Calloway v. City of Reno2/29/2000
r the City's cross-appeal. Only an aggrieved party has standing to appeal. See NRAP 3A(a); Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 734 (1994). The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of appellants' claims against the City. Because the City prevailed in the district court, the City is not an aggrieved party. We therefore dismiss the City's cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above, we affirm the district court's orders dismissing appellants' negligence and strict liability claims against the subcontractors and the City because the claims are barred by the economic loss doctrine and because the townhouses are not "products" for purposes of strict products liability. Additionally, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider the City's cross-appeal.
SHEARING and AGOSTI, JJ., concur.
MAUPIN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The internal inconsistency that marks our jurisprudence on the economic loss doctrine is not unique to Nevada. Almost every state that has adopted the economic loss rule has carved out discreet exceptions that to some degree undermine the public policies behind it. The majority on rehearing in this matter, I believe, substantially reconciles our prior authority on this subject and, in large part, provides a reasonable synthesis that will facilitate predictability in the future. I write separately to expand on the history behind the economic loss doctrine in Nevada and because I believe the majority may have unnecessarily broadened its scope.
The starting point of any analysis of our version of the rule must be Local Joint Executive Board v. Stern, 98 Nev. 409, 651 P.2d 637 (1982). In that case, former employees of the MGM Grand Hotel sought to recover lost salaries and employment benefits for the period during which the resort remained closed following a catastrophic fire in November 1980. This court reaffirmed the common law rule that, "absent privity of contract or personal injury or property damage," a plaintiff may not recover in negligence or strict tort liability for purely economic losses. Id. at 411, 651 P.2d at 638. We consistently applied Stern to prevent tort recovery for purely economic losses in Central Bit Supply v. Waldrop Drilling, 102 Nev. 139, 717 P.2d 35 (1986) (holding that economic losses in connection with a broken drill bit could only be recovered under a breach of warranty theory), and in Arco Product Co. v. May, 113 Nev. 1295, 948 P.2d 263 (1997) (ruling that loss of sales by a convenience store from allegedly defective inventory control system could not, as a matter of law, be the subject of a negligence or strict tort liability claim).
As noted, a general statement of the "economic loss" rule is that recovery for purely economic losses may not be had in tort. Our decisions in Stern, Central Bit and Arco demonstrate this court's clear and continuing embrace of the economic loss doctrine. There are several corollaries to the economic loss rule. First, claims for personal injuries and/or property damage do not implicate the economic loss rule. Second, economic losses are recoverable in tort only when they are incidental to claims for personal injuries and/or property damage. Third, when a product causes injury to itself, i.e., where a defective component of an integrated product damages all or part of the remaining whole, the damages are purely economic, leaving the parties to the acquisition of the product to their contractual remedies. Fourth, a product that injures "other property" causes property damage recoverable in tort. See American Law of Products Lia
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|