Source: https://www.clearcounsel.com/category/las-vegas/page/3/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:58:12+00:00

Document:
You thought there was not way we could get through 5 of these things, yet, here are are, still intact, awaiting the 7th1)no idea if this is accurate Space Warriors movie. The Iowa Caucus is a little more than a month away, so we are pretty much done with these debate stuff?
..Not exactly. If you round down, there are only like a dozen more debates left, which is less than 20, which is preferable to 30? (Doing the best I can here..).
Given how the race has shaken out to this point, it is difficult for me to add much analysis. It’s a one man show right now, according to polls/media coverage/social media mentions. Between you and me, it is fascinating how a reality TV host with no political experience could dominate the party of Lincoln, but here we are. Unfortunately, Mr. Trump has blown the dust off the ole Dixiecrat playbook from the early 20th century2)Gov. Pataki called him a “Know-nothing” during the JV debate, which is a great/pretentious reference that a few of us enjoyed, and has seriously offended more than half the country.
I watched the Trump Vegas rally from Tuesday night, and it was political theater at its very best. Yet I cannot write the explainer3)Trump: How did this happen? that I want to, because I do not want folks to think that I or anyone here at Clear Counsel endorse any of Mr. Trump’s policy ideas.
Therefore, as any discussion of Mr. Trump is 3rd rail, and there is no serious contender to him for the nomination as of now, I am left to provide a few highlights from the debate, and then a nice selection of links so you get can an idea of how much disagreement there is over who won/lost/flubbed.
…Don’t worry, I have some comedy at the end.
About 4 debates too late. But still, it is nice to see that Jeb! has a little fight left in him. Jeb! desperately needed Sen. Graham on stage to back him up4)Who might be the only Republican that can match Sec. Clinton on foreign policy. The rest of these folks have seen the poll numbers showing how nearly 2/3rds of Republican primary voters like Mr. Trump’s policy ideas. Is this about principle or winning?
There’s a reason Jeb! hasn’t taken on Mr. Trump until now.
Seems to have gone fine. The establishment folks should be worried, Mr. Trump is getting better at this format.
But maybe Jeb! and Mr. Trump are going to make-up and play nice?
Thoughts on who won? Unsure, right? Both men speak very well and are aware that there is not enough room in the race for both of them with Mr. Trump taking all of the free-media attention. The attacks on Mr. Cruz’s honesty/integrity hurt him with the voters he has taken/still wants from Mr. Carson. The “amnesty” line of attack on Mr. Rubio hurt him with the much of the anti-immigrant section of the GOP electorate.
In a fight, one senator has to win and the other has to lose, right? The other possibility is that they both lose. Which is what happened last night. In order to beat Mr. Trump, the establishment candidate will need to unite the suit-and-tie element of the party. A divided establishment cannot stand7)up, at least to a billionaire bully.
I aggregated a good selection of links below so you can see the split by the corporate media in regard to winners/losers. Mr. Trump’s easiest path to victory is a divided GOP.
The last 4 links are provided for entertainment purposes only. Thanks for reading.
Does Cruz Satisfy Trump Backers?
3. ↑ Trump: How did this happen?
Is the Las Vegas Puppy Mill Ordinance Constitutional?
You can read a media account of the meeting here.
The city only took public comment at the meeting and did not pass any regulations, making this the best time to evaluate the law (as in, before it will go into effect). Before we can discuss the constitutionality of the proposed ordinance, however, it is best to take a step back and look at what a puppy mill is.
In short, very distasteful. In essence, they are factory farms for producing puppies at the best profit margins. Imagine you were going to attempt to breed dogs for the most amount of money possible, how would you do it?
Keep the female dogs in a constant state of pregnancy to produce the maximum number of puppies during the mother’s lifetime.
Store the dogs in the smallest confines possible in an effort to keep costs as low as possible.
Leave the dogs in the cages in order to keep labor costs minimal.
That should be sufficient. The City of Las Vegas is righteous and moral in its attempt to cease the sale of puppy mill dogs by area pet shops, and this piece will continue under that assumption. Yet, an inquiry into the constitutionality of the proposed ordinance is a different matter.
What Does the Las Vegas Puppy Mill Ordinance Say?
First, I would like to thank the folks managing the City of Las Vegas twitter account for providing me the text of the ordinance2)Unfortunately, the link provided no longer functions. I printed off of the ordinance while I had the chance and will quote from my hard copy..
The ordinance goes on in Section 1(B) to require pet stores to keep certification that their animals are not from puppy mills for one year. Section 2 declares if one section of the ordinance is unconstitional, than the rest of the ordinance remains good law. Section 3 repeals any part of the city code in conflict with the new ordinance, and Section 4 defines the punishment for violation of the ordinance4)a fine of no more than $1,000 or a jail term of not more than 6 months.
Seems simple enough, right? Think again; this is constitutional law we are talking about after all.
Multiple media accounts have stated, erroneously5)I’m sure it was an accident, that the Las Vegas ordinance is similar to the one passed by Phoenix. They are correct in stating that each concerns the subject of pet stores selling puppy mill dogs, but there is a very important distinction between the laws, which we will get to in a moment.
B. All pet shops and pet dealers shall maintain records, for a period of one year from the date of acquisition, listing the source of all dogs or cats under their ownership, custody or control. Records shall be immediately available, upon request, to law enforcement, code compliance officials, and any other City employees charged with enforcing the provisions of this section.
Section A and B are very similar to the Las Vegas ordinance, which we will deal with first (Section C will come soon, not to worry).
That’s right, now it is time to get out our pocket constitutions!8)Get out from under the desk, it’s going to be ok.
Much of our discussion going forward will concern just those first three words.
Is the ordinance constitutional? You are going to be sorry you asked..Kidding, please don’t go! I promise we will get through this without too much pain9)I will skip the really trying parts.
Before we move on to the Commerce Clause analysis, I can hear our loyal readers shouting at their ithings10)trademark pending “I remember that GMO discussion regarding the Supremacy Clause. How can these municipalities regulate interstate commerce in this instance?” Great question! The difference here is that the federal law regulating the treatment of animals, the Animal Welfare Act, states that it “shall not prohibit any State (or a political subdivision of such State) from promulgating standards in addition to those standards promulgated11)Subsection 2143(a). Thus, the answer to your question is that the states are permitted to regulate in this arena, so long as the rest of the constitution is abided by.
..Like the Commerce Clause above.
I will spare you anymore Commerce Clause discussion13)we could go deep into this rabbit hole; there is a reason the Phoenix opinion is 36 pages long, it is the bold part above that really is pertinent to our discussion. The Las Vegas law, like the Phoenix law, will not be subject to strict scrutiny14)because it does not directly regulate interstate commerce, but instead will be evaluated by the Pike balancing test.
We will assume, for sake of brevity, that the ordinances being discussed only incidentally affect interstate commerce. With that being so, the ordinance will be upheld “unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefit.”15)Id. at 28.16)This is where my more conservative friends get upset about judicial activism, and they have a point here. The judge will now evaluate the the effectiveness/value/purpose of the law, and if it is to her liking, then the law will obviously pass the balancing test. If the law seems frivolous in effectiveness/purpose/value then she will say that it does not pass the balancing test. One could argue these are evaluations that should be made by the legislature. If anyone dares to tell you that constitutional law is not political, that judges are just “referees,” for example, stop taking that person seriously at once.
“The modern law of what has come to be called the dormant Commerce Clause is driven by concern about ‘economic protectionism, that is, regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.’” The Ordinance is not an act of economic protectionism. It is a legitimate attempt to curb the problems associated with the inhumane treatment of animals and local dog homelessness and euthanasia. (citation omitted) 17)Id. at 30.
There is no reason to think the the proposed Las Vegas ordinance would not pass a similar evaluation, given that the need to curtail the inhumane treatment of animals and help find homes for homeless animals is no less serious here. A similar law in Chicago was also recently upheld.
Where the Las Vegas Puppy Mill Ordinance May Have Some Constitutional Trouble..
So everything’s dandy right? The Phoenix law got the sign-off from a federal judge, so there is no reason to to think the Las Vegas ordinance will have any legal trouble…or is there?
The proposed Las Vegas ordinance copied Sections A and B from Phoenix, but left out the above text. Why? Well, I am happy to speculate. Of the 36-page opinion quoted above in our Dormant Commerce Clause discussion, more than 2/3rds of it addresses the constitutionality of Part C. Any serious constitutional challenge to the ordinance would concern the municipalities creating an economic climate that favors local sellers to the detriment of out-of-state sellers.18)Judge Campbell upheld Section C above as constitutional, by the way.
Perhaps the City of Las Vegas thought the best way to avoid a constitutional challenge would be to delete the most controversial language of the Phoenix ordinance19)Or maybe their copy/paste functions as well as mine. Politically, this seems like the best course of actions and the city attorney should be commended on his cleverness.
But this may have unintended consequences.
Chew on this question: Based on the quoted language of the Las Vegas ordinance above20)No pet shop shall display, sell, deliver, offer for sale, barter, auction, give away, broker or otherwise transfer or dispose of a dog or cat except for a dog or cat obtained from an animal shelter, nonprofit humane society, or nonprofit animal rescue organization, what is the definition of “pet shop”?
The purpose of Section C of the Phoenix ordinance is to clarify what businesses the new ordinance would apply to. There is no language in the Las Vegas ordinance addressing this issue.
This is a big deal, honest. If you breed your own dog and sell a puppy to a neighbor, are you a pet shop? If not, how many dogs would you have to sell before you would be classified as a pet shop? Are only shops with business licenses considered pet shops?21)And so on, and so on.
1) A constitutional rule that requires criminal laws to state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable. Criminal laws that violate this requirement are said to be void for vagueness. Vagueness doctrine rests on the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. By requiring fair notice of what is punishable and what is not, vagueness doctrine also helps prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws.
A word on the practicalities of constitutional law before we continue. A law or ordinance is never unconstitutional on its face; meaning, the legislature/city council cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional upon ratification. A court must declare a law unconstitutional for it to be so. My point being that all laws are constitutional until a court says otherwise.
So, for the sake of this conversation, neither of these ordinances, as passed, are unconstitutional. I am only saying that there may be a risk that a court might declare the ordinances unconstitutional.
The City of Las Vegas, while cleverly23)I mean that in the true connotation of the word omitting the disputed language from the Phoenix case, may have opened the door to a different constitutional issue. One might say that it makes more sense24)in terms of risk, not to mention good law/clarity to just include language similar to Section C of the Phoenix ordinance as a federal judge has already declared it constitutional. Why open a fresh can of worms with little legal precedent?
That was fun, right? I appreciate you sticking around and spending a little time with us on the Clear Counsel blog. If you are thinking of adopting, I highly recommend the Nevada SPCA25)That little dog in my avatar came from there. They even post photos online of the dogs (and other animals) available for adoption. Look at those cute faces and tell me your home would not be improved with a little fury friend!
1. ↑ Hard for me to think of a public meeting topic that would have most of the attendees smiling; these are our times, unfortunately.
2. ↑ Unfortunately, the link provided no longer functions. I printed off of the ordinance while I had the chance and will quote from my hard copy.
16. ↑ This is where my more conservative friends get upset about judicial activism, and they have a point here. The judge will now evaluate the the effectiveness/value/purpose of the law, and if it is to her liking, then the law will obviously pass the balancing test. If the law seems frivolous in effectiveness/purpose/value then she will say that it does not pass the balancing test. One could argue these are evaluations that should be made by the legislature. If anyone dares to tell you that constitutional law is not political, that judges are just “referees,” for example, stop taking that person seriously at once.
18. ↑ Judge Campbell upheld Section C above as constitutional, by the way.
21. ↑ And so on, and so on.
25. ↑ That little dog in my avatar came from there.
And what a Veterans Day Parade it was! A special thanks to the parade organizers (visit their website) for their kindness and hospitality. The atmosphere could not have been more friendly and welcoming; it was a real joy to cover for the blog.
Also, did you know that the Las Vegas Veterans Day Parade is the 2nd largest in the nation (after New York), and thus, the largest this side of the Mississippi? Pretty darn impressive.
I have organized the photos into two parts: Part I featuring our brothers and sisters in uniform, Part II (you will want to make sure you don’t miss these), pictures of our young people, some very small (and adorable), some much larger than I.
Click on the photos that intrigue you to see them full size. They may take a handful of seconds to load, but it is well worth it.
There is Parade Marshall, Brigadier General Joe Heck (Also our Congressman). From my perspective, he really seemed to be enjoying himself.
There is stand from which the ceremonies were administered. The City should be proud for how well the parade was organized.
Congresswoman Dina Titus of Las Vegas, riding in style.
Commissioner Steve Sisolak received an award of gratitude before the parade of his assistance.
I don’t know about you, but I could either ride a horse or carry a flag.
The Goodmans, Mayors past and present.
Apparently I wasn’t the only one sensitive to the noise.
Yes, that vehicle is called a “Bone-Crusher”.
You can’t have a Military Parade without the USO.
My little flag is found a home on my desk.
Is the dog wearing goggles? You betcha.
Who is the Trump person I keep hearing about?
A tip of the hat to the Valley High School March Band that played (and memorized) a great Sousa melody.
The folks here at Clear Counsel just want express our gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Bless you all.
There can be so many benefits to unconventional therapies and natural remedies. Many people like to dabble in essential oils, vitamins, and yoga. But some people like to go to the extreme. Case in point: Cryotherapy. This new and largely unknown procedure works by exposing people to extremely cold temperatures using liquid nitrogen for short periods of time. This exposure to various parts of the body is thought to act as an extreme “ice pack” of sorts by reducing inflammation, pain, and soreness in the body. Cryotherapy also claims to be able to heal tissues of the body, increase energy, reduce aging, and combat depression1)according to the company that sells it, anyway…. Certain athletes are rumored to use it to heal injuries instead of an ice bath. These cryotherapy “spas” have recently popped up in Las Vegas, and then quickly made the news when an off-duty manager froze to death in a cryotherapy chamber after hours. Sounds terrifying if you ask me, but apparently it is catching on.
But what about compensation for the victim’s family? This is a tougher question. No regulatory agency appears to oversee the cryotherapy business. Not the cosmetology board, not the medical board, and certainly not the FDA. Users are invited to participate in cryotherapy at their own risk. This is the same as the disclaimer on a bottle of vitamin C, which notes that it is not a drug regulated by FDA; but clearly the risk is quite different. So, the only option at this point looks like civil litigation. Although it would initially appear to be an uphill battle because users participate in the therapy at their own risk, this might not really be the case. Depending on what actually went wrong, if the victim’s family can prove that the “operator error” was a reasonably foreseeable misuse, then they will have a fairly strong case against the company. Should it have been fairly obvious that a user of the machine might try to operate it alone? Maybe the machine should have had an automatic shut off or a finger print pad confirming that there were two operators overseeing the use…. On the other hand, the victim was clearly violating safety procedures by using the machine alone after hours. But again, maybe her employer should also be held liable for not having better security which could have prevented employees from entering the building after hours alone. These are all factors that will play out in what will most definitely be an interesting case.
Products liability is a somewhat unique area of law which puts a huge burden on the manufacture of a product to anticipate all “reasonably foreseeable” misuses. In this case, a cryotherapy chamber carries so much risk as a reasonably foreseeable misuse can (and maybe did) cause death. No amount of warnings and disclaimers can negate liability if an economically feasible safety feature could have been incorporated into the product. The examples above, like an automatic shut off or device to ensure two operates were present, certainly do not seem too complicated in light of the innate risk of the product being sold. If there is a company policy that a person should never use the machine alone, then this is clearly a foreseeable misuse. But, this is all just speculation at this point, as we do not know enough facts surrounding the incident to know anything for sure. We will continue to follow the matter closely as it plays out.
A recent decision by a district judge in Carson City indicates that Nevada courts are willing to overrule Nevada’s government agencies in order to protect the state’s workers.
In 2006, Nevada voters voted to amend the Nevada Constitution’s minimum wage provisions. Article XV, Section 16 now states employers must pay a wage of not less than $5.15 per hour if the employer provides health benefits of $6.15 per hour if they employer does not provide health benefits. The minimum wage is actually $7.25 per hour without providing health benefits and $8.25 with health benefits to comply with the federal minimum wage. The Nevada Constitution states that if the employer chooses to pay the lower wage and offer health insurance they cannot charge more than a certain portion of the employee’s pay. “Offering health benefits within the meaning of this section shall consist of making health insurance available to the employee for the employee and the employee’s dependents at a total cost to the employee for premiums of not more than 10 percent of the employee’s gross taxable income from the employer.” Nev. Cons. Art. XV Section 16(A). The language seems clear, right? Apparently not.
Of course, employers would want to interpret this provision to mean that they could charge employees for health insurance up to 10% of all gross taxable income, including tips and other gratuities. It’s not an illogical interpretation since tips are a large part of some employee’s income and taxes must be paid on tips and hourly wages. But, the problem is, the Constitutional language clearly states that the 10% calculation only applies to gross taxable income “from the employer.” It is these three little words that spurred one big lawsuit.
In Hancock v. the Nevada Labor Commissioner, the Plaintiff challenged the Nevada Department of Labor’s implementing regulation which stated that “gross taxable income” for the purposes of calculating health insurance costs included all income reflected in a W-2 including “tips, bonuses, and other compensation.” NAC 608.104(C). The Plaintiff, Mr. Hancock, argued that the Constitution means what it says: that the only income that can be considered for calculating the cost of health insurance is that income from the employer. The Nevada Labor Commissioner argued that the language of the Constitution really meant “all income attributable to the employer” including tips which are earned only because the employer provides the job. The Court found that the language was so clear and that the Labor Commission wanted to simply write out the phrase “from the employer” which was not within their rights, or even the Court’s rights to do. The Court noted that bonuses or other compensation could certainly count as part of the 10% calculation if the employer pays them, but that tips do not come “from the employer” as the language requires. Notably, the Court pointed out that finding tips to be a proper part of the calculation for health insurance costs would go against the whole point of the amendment which was to provide cost effective health insurance largely at the expense of the employer.
A ruling such a this is a huge deal in Nevada with so many casino dealers, casino hosts, cocktail waitresses, bartenders, valets, bellhops, and countless other tipped jobs who make up such a huge part of our labor force. I suspect that casinos and other employers of these job categories will do some major lobbying to get the Constitutional amendment changed to better suit their financial needs. A more inclusive definition of income means that employers can charge employees more and pay less for health insurance. I assume that 10% of a minimum wage salary does not entirely cover the cost of health insurance these days, so any additional money that employers can collect from their workers would directly benefit their bottom line. Based on the plain language of the Constitutional amendment, the judge got it right. Plain language rules over all else, right or wrong. For now, the regulation cannot be enforced.
A second regulation, indicating that employers only had to “offer” health insurance to lower paid employees, rather than actually “provide” it was also declared invalid. NAC 608.100(1). The Plaintiff argued that the whole point of the Constitutional amendment was that employers need to “provide” health insurance, not just “offer” it. The Labor Commission argued that “offering” insurance is “providing” it and all that they were required to do was make health insurance available. The Court disagreed and found in favor of the Plaintiff noting that the amendment requires employers to “provide, furnish, and supply” health insurance rather than just offer it to ensure that employees are in fact insured. As such, the regulation was also declared invalid and its enforcement postponed.
Both of these decisions relied on strict interpretation of the constitutional amendment, and in my opinion the Court made the right decision. When the language is clear, the amendment must be applied according to what it says.
But it is interesting that the Labor Commission would create implementing regulations that were somewhat brazenly contradictory to the plain language of the Constitution. We will keep an eye out for any appeals to see how this plays out.
Want to learn more? KNPR recently had a nice discussion.
I am sure that most of you have heard, at least in passing, about the horrible accident that took the life of race car driver Kevin Ward Jr.. Because the case has gotten so much play1)for better or worse in the press, I thought it might be an opportune time to apply the known facts of the incident to Nevada law so our readers have a better idea how a wrongful death tort works in practice.
You should watch the cellphone video yourself and make your own determination of the facts (Warning: Graphic.). Ward died shortly after being hit by a race car that was driven by Tony Stewart.
On August 9, 2014, Ward and Stewart were racing winged sprint cars, which are the unusual looking buggy-like vehicles that have oversized spoilers on their roof and hood.2)Source They were racing on a short dirt oval track in the town of Canandaguia, New York.
Ward’s car crashed while the cars of Stewart and Ward were next to each other, possibly as a result of a relatively minor collision between the two. Ward exited his car and walked toward the middle of the dirt racetrack while the other race cars were still driving. Since the racetrack is a short oval, it only took about 22 seconds for Stewart’s car to come back around to where Ward was walking and pointing in the general direction of Stewart’s approaching car. It was then that Stewart’s car hit Ward and knocked him further down to the ground.
The race involved 360 Winged Sprints; “360” refers to the cubic inch iron block size of the engine, which produce between 700 and 800 horsepower; the vehicles are light, typically less than 1,475 pounds, which results in a very powerful and light vehicle. For comparison sake, the top selling small car for 2014 was the Toyota Corolla, the mid-range LE model of which weighs 2,855 pounds and has 132 horsepower.
The oval track is 1/2 mile in total length, which just about double the length of a high school 400 meter track. The track appears slightly sloped with the outside being a little higher than the inside of the track; it is otherwise flat. In the middle of the oval, there are very few obstructions preventing spectators or racers to see the opposite side of the track.
It was nighttime and moderately well lit. It did not appear as well lit as a baseball park at a good community field, but lighting was sufficient to show many details from the stands on the opposite side of the oval.
Tony Stewart was 43 years old at the time; he was and is well known and a very experienced and successful NASCAR and sprint car racer. Kevin Ward Jr. was a local 20 year old sprint car racer who graduated from a South Lewis Central high school. His high school is located in the small town of Turin, New York, which is just a two and a half hour drive away from Canandaigua.
This is purely a hypothetical because it is an analysis of the claims of Ward’s estate and his decedents if the accident occurred in Nevada.
There are persons who may claim that Tony Stewart may have intended to harm Ward, but that issue will not likely prevail and will not be addressed here. The issues addressed here are whether Stewart’s actions were negligent, regardless of whether he intended on intimidating Ward or not. Next, even if it can be proved that Stewart was negligent, Ward was almost certainly negligent by placing himself in harm’s way through his actions of walking towards moving race cars during an active race. What would Ward’s negligence be and how would it affect the claim of his estate and heirs?
In order to succeed on a wrongful death action in Nevada, a party must prove that “the death of any person, whether or not a minor, is caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.”3)NRS 41.085. A legal cause is a “cause which is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.”4)Nevada Jury Instructions – Civil 2011 Edition Inst. 4.16; Cnty. of Clark, ex rel. Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749, 759, 961 P.2d 754, 760 (1998).
The determination of duty is adjudicated by the court6)Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entm’t, LLC, 124 Nev. 213, 220, 180 P.3d 1172, 1177 (2008). The remaining issues of negligence are fact intensive for a jury to decide.7)Doud v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp., 109 Nev. 1096, 1106, 864 P.2d 796, 802 (1993).
In Nevada, a defendant may assert a defense that the injured or deceased plaintiff was also negligent and the claim should be reduced by that percentage of negligence or eliminated.8)(NRS 41.1410). Nevada is a state that prevents recovery completely only if the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault9)Id.. If the plaintiff is 50% or less responsible for the incident, s/he may recover damages reduced by his or her share of the negligence.
How Does Nevada Law Apply to This Accident?
At this point, there are a number of facts that are not known that may be found through discovery in litigation. Aside from background information about the track and race, the only real piece of evidence available for analysis is the 52 second video taken by a cell phone of a witness. Other videos may exist as taken by other witnesses, Canandaigua Motorsports Park, or the organizers of the race, which has videos of other races on their website. We do not have the testimony of any depositions from Stewart, other racers, and other witnesses. They may be able to provide some important facts that we do not have. The opinions and testimony of experts will likely be required to explain to a judge or jury safe practices of drivers, track operators, and race organizers.
If there is an accident, the field will be restarted with the car or cars causing the restart, plus any stopped car, going to the rear of the field.
The rules leave much to be desired, for example, they do not define accident, restart, and or the procedures of a restart. The rules make multiple references to colors of flags indicating actions, but do not state what flag is flown after an accident to indicate a restart. They also do not state what actions are to be taken by the drivers upon notice of a restart. If the flag person communicated to the drivers that there was an accident, or just that there is to be a restart, then the drivers have no reason to be racing, driving quickly, or passing one another because rule B.12 also states that, except for those involved in the accident, the order of racers will be preserved for the restart. In the beginning of the video, there is a person on a raised stand near the spectator bleachers who has multiple colored at his feet. If the race organizer or director did not properly train its employees on how to respond to an accident, they may be subject to liability as well.
It makes sense that a restart was communicated to the drivers after the accident because in the first 13 seconds of the video, which was before and immediately after the crash, many of the racers traveled on the far outside of the track on the straight portion after the turn (one car passed just after the collision and while Ward’s car was still moving). After the first 13 seconds, approximately 18 cars can be seen in the foreground passing between Ward and the inside of the track prior to Stewart’s car hitting Ward, most of which appear to be much closer to the inside of the track than the outside. Only 3 more cars passed after Stewart’s, immediately after which a waiting ATV and truck quickly entered the track, which indicated that the people waiting to help Ward were probably able to see that these last 3 racers were the last to enter a line for the restart. According to the race results, there were a total of 22 racers. This makes a total of 24 cars, including Stewart’s and another that passed Ward’s car after the first collision. It is quite possible that a restart flag did not go up until after the first two cars passed the flag position and had to pass the accident scene twice.
Assuming that a restart was communicated, this shows three big reasons why a driver should have been traveling slowly. First, the cars should slow down and drive to avoid any stopped or disabled cars. There was not much dust to prevent visibility, the track was small, and the visibility out of the side of a sprint car is quite good; thus, a racer should easily be able to see a stopped car even from the opposite side of the track and on the approach sufficient to be able to avoid it.
Second, the cars had to be slowing down because they would presumably have to stop for the line-up in preparation for the restart. All three of the cars that came after Stewart’s second collision drove past less than five seconds later; they were not driving quickly and one was moving so slowly you can almost read the words on the side of the tires.
Third, there was no reason to hurry because the order of the racers is preserved unless you are Stewart and Ward, both of whom were supposed to be sent to the back of the race for being involved in the collision (assuming Stewart’s car actually made contact with Ward’s car).
Based upon the information obtained from the video in combination with the rules and some assumptions, it appears that Stewart was likely negligent for failing to drive slowly and avoid Ward walking on the track. While it is difficult to tell exactly, it appears that after Ward exited his vehicle, three of the 18 passing cars did not drive past on the very inside of the track. Stewart was the last of the three. He had the most time to slow down of the three and he was the 17th of now-21 cars to enter the line for the restart. He likely had ample time to observe Ward on the track and to take actions to avoid him by traveling on the inside of the track just like most of the other safe drivers.
Some individuals have commented that Ward should not have been on the track so Stewart should be excused. That is similar to stating that any driver who hits a pedestrian on a freeway should face no liability. Drivers on a freeway still have obligations to drive safely and avoid hazards and other people, even if the pedestrian is not supposed to be there.
Ward clearly violated this rule, which was for his own safety. The most difficult determination is whether Ward’s negligence exceeded Stewart’s. This decision would probably be affected by evidence not available to the public at this time such as whether Stewart “revved” his engine while passing Ward in an attempt to intimidate Ward, which would also suggest that the location of Stewart’s car closer to Ward was also part of an intimidation tactic. If so, this would show Stewart was behaving even more dangerously than the video shows. Assuming that there was an order for the racers to restart, Ward had some expectation of safety in walking on the track because the cars would be slowing down to get in line. While additional facts could tip my opinion either way, I am going to slightly side with Ward and argue that he was 45% at fault and Stewart was 55% at fault.
It would ultimately be up to a jury to decide whether Stewart should be held at fault for wrongful death of Kevin Ward Jr.. After Stewart’s and Ward’s cars appeared to have collided, causing Ward’s car to lose control and crash, it appears a restart of the race was ordered. Ward negligently walked on foot towards the middle of the track before all the cars stopped and approached Stewart’s car, which was moving when Ward’s body was tragically thrown. Stewart likely knew of the importance to slow down and stay away from the accident scene and appeared to only partially perform these actions. Thus, both men appeared to be negligent, yet Stewart appeared to be slightly more so.
4. ↑ Nevada Jury Instructions – Civil 2011 Edition Inst. 4.16; Cnty. of Clark, ex rel. Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749, 759, 961 P.2d 754, 760 (1998).
7. ↑ Doud v. Las Vegas Hilton Corp., 109 Nev. 1096, 1106, 864 P.2d 796, 802 (1993).
Nevada retailers and other merchants who accept credit card payments are rightfully confused and concerned about new EMV liability rules that will take effect on October 1, 2015. Though it is certainly disconcerting to hear that the retailer or merchant might be liable for fraudulent credit card transactions (as opposed to the credit card companies), the reality is that Nevada retailers and merchants are not facing impending doom and business ruin by not updating to EMV-compliant technology immediately. Of course, Nevada retailers and merchants should be aware of how these new rules affect their business and should make their own cost-benefit analysis before investing in new technology.
In the best layman’s terms I can think of, an EMV credit card includes a small chip rather than the standard magnetic stripe that we have all been used to seeing on the back of our credit cards. It is claimed that EMV-enabled cards incorporate safety features that will avoid almost all possibility of fraudulent credit card transactions. When literally billions of dollars of credit card fraud occurs every year with the standard magnetic stripe cards, this is a great development in the fight against financial fraud.
However, there has been a great amount of concern about the new EMV rules that take effect on October 1, 2015. The biggest question is about the “liability shift” that occurs on October 1, 2015. In uncomplicated terms, on October 1, 2015, retailers and merchants that accept credit card transactions that turn out to be fraudulent may be left on the hook for those losses, instead of the credit card companies who have always previously covered all instances of fraud1)It is important to note that there are many businesses that will not have any liability whatsoever for various reasons. The nuances of these differences is not examined here.. In short, the new EMV rules push some of the financial loss from fraudulent credit card transactions to the retailer, rather than the credit card companies.
Nevada retailers, particularly small businesses, should rightfully be concerned about this liability shift. One large fraudulent transaction could ruin a small business. To protect against this liability shift, the credit card companies are pressuring retailers to purchase expensive new credit card processing equipment that is EMV-compliant. Should Nevada retailers invest hundreds or thousands of dollars in new credit card processing equipment that is EMV-compliant? Should they take the risk of not having the equipment? What exactly is the risk of not paying for upgraded EMV-compliant equipment? Let’s try to take a bit of the shock out of these questions.
Most importantly, Nevada retailers will be responsible for the financial losses from a fraudulent credit card transaction only in one circumstance: when a customer presents an EMV-enabled credit card, but the retailer is not using EMV-compliant credit card processing equipment to run the transaction. In this situation, if the transaction turns out to be fraudulent, the retailer will bear the liability (i.e., the financial loss) from the fraudulent transaction. It is also important to consider that if a customer presents a traditional magnetic stripe credit card, which is processed on either the old non-EMV-compliant equipment or the new EMV-compliant equipment, and the transaction turns out to be fraudulent, the retailer is not financially liable for this loss.
Should Nevada retailers take the risk?
Nevada retailers should justifiably be concerned about the financial harm to their business if the retailer is liable for a fraudulent transaction. However, as with most business matters, the retailer simply has to calculate a risk analysis and determine as a business matter whether it makes sense right now to protect against this risk by purchasing the expensive new equipment. The first consideration for Nevada retailers is the general fact that the vast majority of credit card transactions in Nevada will likely continue to be processed with the traditional magnetic stripe cards for quite some time. Only a relatively small number of credit card holders have and use an EMV-enabled card2)Las Vegas’ retailers do more business [particularly per capita] than most American cities. When calculating your risk, know that other countries, European ones in particular, have used EMV-enabled cards for a few years now. Remember, any time that a fraudulent transaction occurs with the traditional magnetic stripe card, the retailer is not liable. Nevada retailers would do well to study their transactions in their business over the next month or two to determine how many credit card transactions are processed with EMV-enabled cards. If the number of these transactions is relatively few, the retailer may choose to take the business risk of possible liability on those few transactions.
Of course, in the next few years, we will see more and more credit cards issued with the EMV chip included, rather than the magnetic stripe. But over time, retailers will naturally purchase new credit card processing equipment as part of their normal course of business as equipment becomes outdated or broken. The retailer may choose to wait until the natural cycle of their business to change to the new EMV-compliant processing equipment. In any event, whether retailers choose to make the switch now or in the future, it is unlikely that a retailer will want to hold onto non-EMV compliant equipment forever.
Making the decision to transfer to EMV-compliant equipment is simply a business decision of weighing risks3)When analyzing the risk, remember to account for potential losses as a result of a being held liable for fraud and costs. Will a retailer be liable for the financial loss of a fraudulent transaction if the retailer processes an EMV-enabled card on non-EMV compliant equipment? Yes. Is that risk likely to arise? Maybe, maybe not. If the number of customers using EMV-enabled cards is low in the first place, and if the risk of the customers engaging in fraudulent transactions is even lower, a retailer may just conclude that the “liability shift” of the new EMV rules is much ado about nothing and may just choose to continue business as normal. But, as I like to say, “It doesn’t matter until it matters.” When that one ruinous fraudulent transaction does come through, do not say that you were not warned of the risk.
And, we wish you all a Happy EMV Day on October 1st!
1. ↑ It is important to note that there are many businesses that will not have any liability whatsoever for various reasons. The nuances of these differences is not examined here.
Are Uber Drivers Employees of the Company?
There are so many reasons to live in fabulous Las Vegas; we have great weather, low taxes, a healthy job market, and plenty of entertainment for all walks of life. But one downside of life in the desert is that it is rather difficult to get around without a car. The public bus system in Las Vegas is difficult to navigate and entirely inconvenient for many1)Not to say that our bus drivers work extremely hard, and we appreciate it very much. Taxis tend to cater to tourists and do not seem to want to do long drives to and from homes far from the strip2)Multiple people in my office have stories of cabs refusing to drive to the suburbs from downtown. Enter Uber, the immensely popular, ride sharing service.
The concept of Uber is simple: download the app on your phone, and request a ride. The app will instantly show you the drivers in your area and send the closest one to come get you. Often times, the wait is only a matter of minutes. Each driver is assigned a rating by reviews of customers and if a driver has a low rating, a rider can reject that driver and wait for the next closest one. It is convenient, fast, and relatively3)Compared to a cab cheap. It is even safe for the drivers who never have to carry money because all payment is done through a credit card on the app. Uber takes 20% of the fare and the rest belongs to the driver4)Additionally, the app will estimate the entire fare up front so you will not be surprised upon your arrival.
Many locals/non-locals in Nevada like to go out at night and have a drink or two, so Uber will likely reduce DUIs and related accidents because it is so simple/easy; it is silly not to use it if you need a ride. But, a unique service like Uber does come with quite a few legal and practical issues that relate to classifying drivers and paying taxes.
is an integral part of the employer’s operation.
must pay all taxes on their own without employer withholding.
Independent contractors are cheaper because employers do not have to pay payroll taxes, provide insurance, provide a place to work, and they do not have to comply with wage and hour laws because the contractor works on his or her own time. Each employment relationship is unique and must be examined on a case by case basis to determine whether someone is an employee or independent contractor.
Uber claims that their drivers are independent contractors, but I am not so sure. Why does it matter, you ask? Well, if Uber drivers were classified as employees, the company would have to spend quite a bit more money paying taxes, benefits, insurances, and possibly providing cars for the drivers to use while working. But, all of these costs would likely be passed onto the consumer and likely hurt Uber’s bottom line. On the other hand, employees would benefit by receiving protections of wage and hours laws, receiving benefits, and being eligible for unemployment benefits if laid off.
Interestingly, despite the benefits, being classified as employees might be the exact opposite of what Uber drivers want. As it stands now, once hired by Uber, each driver must take his or her own personal vehicle to a designated mechanic for inspection. It is this personal vehicle that drivers will use for work. Each driver decides when to work, for how long, and where to drive. They have no one to answer to other than the reviewers who will ensure repeated business and an ongoing job with their positive feedback. A job like this can mean extra money for someone with another job or an income for someone who has limited childcare. There are many benefits to being an independent contractor in this business, and Uber likely appeals to many people who shy away from a 9-5 traditional setting job5)Paging Las Vegas buskers.
Although Uber claims their drivers are independent contractors, recent decisions by California courts have found otherwise for drivers in similar circumstances to those of Uber drivers here in Nevada. It remains to be seen whether Uber is eventually forced to classify their drivers as employees, but there are so many pros and cons to being an employee and an independent contractor, that Uber is really left between a rock and a hard place. Their business model depends on the flexibility and independence of each driver but at the same time, wage, hour laws and benefits regulations are designed to protect the work force.
Now what for Uber Drivers?
But what if Uber employees just will not fit into either category? Nevada could recognize a new class of employees to better protect workers and meet the needs and budget of a modern company like Uber. Other countries, like neighboring Canada, have various categories of workers. Maybe therein lies the answer. If Nevada creates a new class of workers, Uber drivers could maintain independence and still receive important protections and benefits. Many independent contractors could potentially benefit from a new category of worker: freelance writers, web designers, and online marketing specialists, just to name a few.
I do not expect Uber to reclassify their employees since it cuts into their bottom line. But, it is a fairly close call as to whether the drivers are employees or independent contractors. Uber controls prices and monitors employee performance like a traditional employer, but Uber does not tell drivers when to work or how to drive, allowing them to make the decisions like an independent contractor would do. Yet, if Uber is sued for wage and hour violations, it is fairly likely that a judge would find a driver to be an employee under the control of Uber, which is what happened in California. So, if lawsuits like that cut into Uber’s bottom line, I suppose there would be a point where it would just be cheaper to have drivers be employees. I would guess though, that it would take a substantial number of lawsuits to make it financially beneficial for Uber to amend its policies. Perhaps if it looks like Uber may be in trouble for misclassifying employees down the road, then they might spend the money to lobby for new classifications. We shall see.
But, that is a long time away since Uber’s just getting started. It appears right now that the state of Nevada has given Uber to “go ahead” but Clark County has not and is trying to stop Uber from operating. But that’s a story for another day…..

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.