When a child is hurt, the legal questions arrive at the worst possible time. A parent is managing appointments, missed school, a cast or a surgery, and an insurance adjuster who is already calling. Somewhere in that stretch someone will say that there is no rush because the child has until adulthood to sue. That statement is partly true, frequently misapplied, and in several categories of case flatly wrong.
Nevada does protect children from losing claims because their parents did not act. It protects them unevenly. The general rule is generous, the medical malpractice rule is not, and the rule for claims against a school district or another public body is different again. On top of that, a child’s case cannot simply be settled the way an adult’s can. A parent’s signature is not enough. A district court judge has to approve the deal, and the money usually goes into an account the family cannot touch.
Here is how each of those pieces works, and where families most often get caught.
The Two Year Rule and What Changes for a Minor
Nevada gives an injured person two years to bring a personal injury claim. NRS 11.190(4)(e) sets that limit for an action to recover damages for injuries to a person or for the death of a person caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another. The clock ordinarily starts when the injury occurs.
NRS 11.250 changes the arithmetic for children. It provides that if a person entitled to bring an action, other than an action for the recovery of real property, was within the age of 18 years at the time the cause of action accrued, the time of that disability is not counted as part of the period limited for commencing the action. Read together with the two year rule, that means a child hurt at age seven generally has until two years after turning 18, so the twentieth birthday, rather than age nine.
Two limits on that principle are worth stating plainly. The tolling protects the person who was under 18 when the claim arose. It is not a general extension of every claim connected to the same incident, so adults in the household who have their own related claims should not assume the child’s extra time belongs to them. The statute is also written for court deadlines, not for evidence. Two years after the fact, surveillance footage is gone, the store has remodeled, the dog has been rehomed and the witnesses have moved. Ten years after the fact, almost nothing useful is left.
The Exception That Catches Families Off Guard
Medical negligence follows an entirely different statute, and it is the single most common place families lose a child’s claim.
NRS 41A.097 governs actions against providers of health care. For injuries occurring on or after October 1, 2002, the action may not be commenced more than three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers or through reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first. That period is tolled while the provider conceals an act, error or omission underlying the claim.
Subsection 4 is the provision that surprises people. It makes the parent, guardian or legal custodian of a minor child responsible for exercising reasonable judgment about whether to prosecute a claim within those limits, and it states that if the parent, guardian or custodian fails to commence an action within the prescribed period, the child may not bring an action based on the same alleged injury after reaching adulthood. In other words, the ordinary minority tolling does not rescue a pediatric malpractice claim. The statute then carves out two narrow exceptions. Where the injury is brain damage or a birth defect, the period is extended until the child turns 10. Where the injury is sterility, the period runs until two years after the child discovers the injury.
A family that assumes a birth injury or a missed pediatric diagnosis can wait until the child is grown may find the claim already gone. Anything involving a hospital, a physician, a clinic or a nurse deserves a legal opinion within months, not years.
When a School District or Another Public Body Is the Defendant
Playground falls, bus injuries, athletic injuries, unsupervised shop or lab accidents and injuries on public park equipment all point toward a government defendant, and the rules change accordingly.
NRS 41.0305 expressly includes a school district and the governing body of a charter school in the definition of political subdivision for purposes of Nevada’s government claims statutes. NRS 41.036(2) then requires a person with a tort claim against a political subdivision to file that claim within two years after the cause of action accrues with the governing body of that subdivision. NRS 41.036(3) does say that this filing is not a condition precedent to bringing an action under NRS 41.031, so Nevada is not a state where a missed notice letter automatically ends everything. The sensible approach is still to treat the two year presentment as a live deadline running from the date of the incident and to file it, rather than to build a case on the assumption that a minority tolling statute will rescue a late claim against a public entity.
Two other government rules shape these cases. NRS 41.032 immunizes discretionary functions, and NRS 41.033 bars claims founded on a failure to inspect a facility or a failure to discover a hazard, whether or not there was a duty to inspect. NRS 41.035 caps what a single claimant can be awarded against the State, a political subdivision or their employees acting within the scope of their duties, and forbids punitive damages against them entirely. That ceiling has been raised in stages over the years, so any figure quoted in an older article should be confirmed against the version in force when the claim arose. Our discussion of lawsuits involving teachers and Nevada school districts goes further into how these claims are structured.
Why Waiting Until Eighteen Is Usually a Poor Plan
Even when the extra time genuinely exists, using it is rarely in the child’s interest. The evidence problem is the obvious one. There is a quieter problem that matters just as much.
Serious pediatric injuries generate ongoing costs that somebody pays in the meantime. Medical providers assert liens. Health insurers assert subrogation rights. A family that waits a decade may spend that decade absorbing costs that a timely claim could have shifted. Waiting also removes the option of settling the case while the child still needs the care that the settlement is supposed to fund.
There is a genuine countervailing consideration with young children, which is that the full extent of an injury sometimes cannot be measured until growth is finished. A growth plate fracture, a significant burn across a joint or a brain injury in a toddler may look different at 14 than it did at four. That is a reason to get a case evaluated early and pace it deliberately with medical input, not a reason to do nothing. Cases involving lasting neurological harm belong in the brain injury category from the beginning, and the same is true of the broader catastrophic injury analysis where lifetime care planning is involved.
Court Approval Is Required Before Any Settlement Counts
This is the part most families have never heard of. In Nevada, a parent cannot simply accept a settlement for a child and cash the check.
NRS 41.200 governs the compromise of a claim by an unemancipated minor against a third person. Either parent may compromise the claim, or the custodial parent where the parents live apart, or the parent the child lives with where no custody award exists, or a general guardian or guardian of the estate if one has been appointed. The statute then states that such a compromise is not effective until it is approved by the district court of the county where the minor resides, or, if the minor is not a Nevada resident, by the district court of the county where the claim was incurred, on a verified written petition regularly filed with the court.
An insurer that offers to settle a child’s claim without that step is offering something that does not bind the child. Adjusters occasionally suggest that a small claim can be handled informally. That is a risk the family carries, not the insurer.
What the Judge Actually Reviews at the Compromise Hearing
The petition required by NRS 41.200 is detailed, and the detail exists to let a judge see whether the deal is fair to the child rather than convenient for the adults. The petition must set out the child’s name, age and residence, the circumstances that make it a disputed claim for money, the name of the third person the claim is made against, and, if the claim comes from an accident or a motor vehicle crash, the date, place and facts of that event. It must identify the parents or legal guardian, the person with physical custody of the child, and the petitioner and their relationship to the child.
It must then break down the money. The total proceeds and their apportionment, including attorney fees and whether those fees are fixed or contingent, and if contingent the percentage of the proceeds to be paid, plus medical expenses and other expenses, and whether those fees and expenses come out before or after the contingency fee is calculated. The petitioner must state whether they believe acceptance is in the child’s best interest, and must confirm they have been advised and understand that accepting the compromise bars the child from seeking further relief from the party offering it.
Where the claim involves personal injury, the statute requires the petitioner to submit all relevant medical and health care records at the compromise hearing, documenting the injury, prognosis, treatment and progress of recovery, along with medical expenses incurred to date, what has been paid and by whom, what remains owing, and an estimate of future medical expenses. NRS 41.200 also directs that the clerk charge no fee for filing the petition or for placing it on the calendar.
The Blocked Account and How the Money Gets Released
Once the court approves a compromise, it directs where the money goes. Under NRS 41.200, the court may order the proceeds paid to a parent or guardian, with or without a bond, or may require a general guardian or a guardian ad litem to be appointed and paid instead, whichever the court considers to be in the child’s best interests.
The parent or guardian receiving the proceeds must then establish a blocked financial investment for the child’s benefit. Proof that the account has been established must be filed with the court within 30 days of receiving the funds. If the balance exceeds 10,000 dollars, an annual verified report detailing the account’s activity must be filed. If the balance is 10,000 dollars or less, the court may order whatever periodic reports it considers appropriate. The statute defines a blocked financial investment as a savings account at a depository institution in Nevada, a certificate of deposit, a United States savings bond, a fixed or variable annuity contract, or another reliable investment approved by the court.
Money comes out of that account in only two ways. By an order of the court that held the compromise hearing, or by that court certifying that the beneficiary has turned 18, at which point control transfers to the young adult or the account is closed and distributed to them. Families sometimes petition for an early release for a specific need such as a medical device or education, and the Nevada Supreme Court’s self help center publishes the blocked account and guardianship forms that those requests use. A structured settlement annuity is a common alternative where the sum is large, because it can schedule payments across adulthood instead of releasing everything on a birthday.
Fault, Liens and the Order of Operations
Nevada applies modified comparative negligence under NRS 41.141. An injured person may recover as long as their share of fault is not greater than the combined fault of the defendants, with the award reduced by their percentage, and recovery ends at fifty one percent. Defendants do raise comparative fault against children, and how far that argument goes depends heavily on the child’s age and capacity. Adult supervision is a separate question, and a defendant blaming a parent is not the same as a defendant defeating the child’s claim.
The practical order for most families is straightforward. Get the child treated and keep every record. Identify the responsible party quickly and send preservation demands, particularly where video exists. Determine early whether a health care provider or a government entity is involved, because both carry shorter or stricter deadlines. Resolve liens and subrogation claims before the compromise hearing so the judge sees accurate net figures. Then present the petition. Common childhood claims run through familiar categories, including dog bite injuries and drowning and near drowning incidents, and each of those has its own evidence rhythm. If you are unsure how much time is left on any of these clocks, our overview of the statute of limitations in Nevada injury cases is a reasonable place to begin.
If your child was injured in Nevada and you are trying to work out which deadline applies or how a settlement would have to be approved, The Bourassa Law Group offers a free consultation. We can look at the specific facts, identify whether a health care provider or a public entity changes the timeline, and explain what a compromise petition would involve before anyone signs anything.
This article is general information about Nevada law and is not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts, and reading an article is not a substitute for speaking with a lawyer about your child’s situation.
1-800-870-8910