Meadows v. Sheldon Pollack Corp.

Nevada Supreme Court

Meadows v. Sheldon Pollack Corp.

556 P.2d 546, 92 Nev. 636, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 699

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided November 19, 1976·No. No. 8464·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

[637]*637OPINION

Per Curiam:

On October 10, 1974, appellant filed suit to recover for personal injuries suffered May 11, 1972, in a fall of an elevator manufactured by Montgomery Elevator Company and installed by respondent Sheldon Pollack Corporation. Finding the two-year statute of limitations (NRS 11.190(4) (e)) precluded appellant’s action, the district court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss.¹ Here, appellant contends the district court erred by ruling the two-year statute of limitations was applicable. He also contends the trial court erred in ruling the provisions of NRS 11.205 inapplicable. We reject both contentions.

1. Appellant argues the longer statute of limitations of NRS 11.190(1) (b) or 11.190(2) (c) govern because his action sounds in contract.² However, the gravamen of his cause of action is in tort to recover damages for personal injuries; thus, the two-year limitation of NRS 11.190(4) (e) is applicable. See: Blotzke v. Christmas Tree, Inc., 88 Nev. 449, 499 P.2d 647 (1972); and, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Wharton, 88 Nev. 183, 495 P.2d 359 (1972).

2. Appellant cites no relevant authority in support of his argument that the provisions of NRS 11.205 are applicable; thus, we need not, and therefore do not, consider it. Alves v. Bumguardner, 91 Nev. 799, 544 P.2d 436 (1975).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[637]*637OPINION

Per Curiam:

On October 10, 1974, appellant filed suit to recover for personal injuries suffered May 11, 1972, in a fall of an elevator manufactured by Montgomery Elevator Company and installed by respondent Sheldon Pollack Corporation. Finding the two-year statute of limitations (NRS 11.190(4) (e)) precluded appellant’s action, the district court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss.¹ Here, appellant contends the district court erred by ruling the two-year statute of limitations was applicable. He also contends the trial court erred in ruling the provisions of NRS 11.205 inapplicable. We reject both contentions.

1. Appellant argues the longer statute of limitations of NRS 11.190(1) (b) or 11.190(2) (c) govern because his action sounds in contract.² However, the gravamen of his cause of action is in tort to recover damages for personal injuries; thus, the two-year limitation of NRS 11.190(4) (e) is applicable. See: Blotzke v. Christmas Tree, Inc., 88 Nev. 449, 499 P.2d 647 (1972); and, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Wharton, 88 Nev. 183, 495 P.2d 359 (1972).

2. Appellant cites no relevant authority in support of his argument that the provisions of NRS 11.205 are applicable; thus, we need not, and therefore do not, consider it. Alves v. Bumguardner, 91 Nev. 799, 544 P.2d 436 (1975).

Affirmed.

Meadows v. Sheldon Pollack Corp., 556 P.2d 546, 92 Nev. 636, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 699 (Neb. 1976).

Pincite

556 P.2d 546 (Meadows v. Sheldon Pollack Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related