Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Forsberg v. Carson City

Supreme Court of Nevada

June 17, 2013

MARK FORSBERG AND NICOLE FORSBERG, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Appellants,
v.
CARSON CITY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a district court summary judgment order in a negligence action. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James E. Wilson, Judge.[1]

Appellants Mark and Nicole Forsberg filed a complaint for negligence against respondent Carson City alleging that respondent was negligent in constructing a catchment road near their property, which resulted in flood damage to their home. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment on this claim on respondent's motion, concluding that Carson City was immune from liability for any alleged negligence claim because the project constituted emergency management as contemplated by NRS 414.110.[2]

On appeal, appellants argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on their negligence claim on NRS 414.110 immunity grounds. Having reviewed the parties' briefs and appendices, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment. NRS 414.110(1) creates absolute governmental immunity for "activities relating to emergency management." In ASAP Storage, Inc. v. City of Sparks, this court held that emergency management activities include both preparation activities and response activities. 123 Nev. 639, 654, 173 P.3d 734, 744 (2007). And "[w]hether a pre-emergency act is immune turns solely on whether it was undertaken by the government in preparing for an emergency." Id. at 654-55, 173 P.3d at 744-45 (recognizing that NRS 414.110(1) provided immunity for emergency planning activities and emergency functions related to a flood); see also NRS 414.035 (defining emergency management as preparation for all emergency functions to minimize injury and repair damage from emergencies or disasters caused by floods, fires, and other disasters).

Based on our review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly held that Carson City's construction of the catchment road fell within the scope of activities covered by NRS 414.110(1) immunity. See ASAP Storage, 123 Nev. at 654, 173 P.3d at 744 (providing that "NRS 414.110(1) creates governmental immunity for emergency preparation activities as well as emergency responses"). Thus, given that appellants' complaint alleged only that Carson City was negligent in constructing the catchment road and did not include claims for gross negligence, willful misconduct, or bad faith, the district court did not err in granting Carson City summary judgment on appellants' negligence claims on NRS 414.110(1) immunity grounds.[3] ASAP Storage, 123 Nev. at 654-55, 173 P.3d at 744-45; see also Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) (explaining that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.[4]

Hardesty, J. Parraguirre, J. Cherry, J.

Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge Laurie A. Yott, Settlement Judge.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.