Pages on this subject tend to answer with a list of factors — how badly someone was hurt, how clear the fault was, how good the evidence is. All of that is true and none of it is law. It describes what negotiators weigh, not what the legal system actually determines.
Nevada law answers a narrower question, and answers it precisely. It does not say what a claim is worth. It says what happens to the money around a judgment: which side’s costs shift, when a court may add attorney’s fees, and from what date interest starts to run.
Those mechanisms sit behind every premises negotiation, because they shape what each side stands to gain or lose by not settling. They are also the only part of the question with a verifiable answer.
Key Takeaways
- No source states what a Nevada slip and fall claim is worth, and this page does not attempt to.
- Costs “must be allowed of course to the prevailing party” in an action for money or damages above a threshold the statute fixes.
- Nevada defines costs by a list of seventeen items, which includes expert witness fees within statutory limits.
- Attorney’s fees may be allowed where a prevailing party’s recovery does not exceed a level the statute fixes.
- They may also be allowed regardless of recovery where a claim or defence was brought “without reasonable ground or to harass.”
- A judgment draws interest “from the time of service of the summons and complaint until satisfied.”
- Future damages are the exception: they draw interest only from entry of the judgment.
Why the Usual Answer Is Not an Answer
Factor lists are not wrong, but they cannot be checked. Nobody can say how much a particular fact moves a particular case, and a page that implies otherwise is describing an instinct rather than a rule.
What can be checked is the statutory machinery that operates once a case is decided. That machinery does not set a value, but it is one of the reasons two sides with the same view of the facts can still be far apart — because they are calculating different exposures around the same number.
Costs Shift to the Prevailing Party
Nevada does not leave costs to discretion in the ordinary case. NRS 18.020 provides that “costs must be allowed of course to the prevailing party against any adverse party against whom judgment is rendered, in the following cases,” and then lists them.
The relevant one for an injury claim is the third: “in an action for the recovery of money or damages, where the plaintiff seeks to recover more than” the amount the subsection specifies. Above that threshold, costs follow the result as a matter of course rather than as a matter of argument.
The phrase “of course” is doing real work. It means the entitlement arises from the outcome rather than from persuading the court that an award would be fair.
What Counts as Costs
NRS 18.005 defines the term for this purpose, and the definition is a list of seventeen items rather than a general formula. It opens: “for the purposes of NRS 18.010 to 18.150, inclusive, the term ‘costs’ means” — and then names them.
Among them are clerks’ fees; reporters’ fees for depositions, including one copy of each; jurors’ fees and expenses; fees for witnesses at trial, pretrial hearings and depositions; reasonable fees of necessary interpreters; process server or sheriff’s fees for serving a summons or subpoena; costs for any bond or undertaking; photocopies, postage and telecopies; and “reasonable costs for travel and lodging incurred taking depositions and conducting discovery.”
Item 5 is the one that matters most in a contested injury case. It allows “reasonable fees of not more than five expert witnesses” up to a per-expert amount the statute states, “unless the court allows a larger fee after determining that the circumstances surrounding the testimony of the expert witness were of such necessity as to require the larger fee.”
The list closes with a general item — “any other reasonable and necessary expense incurred in connection with the action, including reasonable and necessary expenses for computerized services for legal research” — so it is not exhaustive in spirit, though the specific items are specific.
Two of the named items carry their own qualification. Witness fees are allowed “unless the court finds that the witness was called at the instance of the prevailing party without reason or necessity,” and service fees are allowed “unless the court determines that the service was not necessary.”
When Attorney’s Fees Become Available
Fees are treated separately from costs and are discretionary rather than automatic.
NRS 18.010(2) provides that “in addition to the cases where an allowance is authorized by specific statute, the court may make an allowance of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party” in two situations.
The first, in paragraph (a), applies where “the prevailing party has not recovered more than” an amount the paragraph specifies. It is aimed at smaller recoveries.
The second, in paragraph (b), applies “without regard to the recovery sought, when the court finds that the claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint or defense of the opposing party was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party.”
That paragraph runs both ways, and the statute is emphatic about how it should be approached: “the court shall liberally construe the provisions of this paragraph in favor of awarding attorney’s fees in all appropriate situations.” The subsection goes on to record the Legislature’s intent that courts use it, together with sanctions under the civil rules, “to punish for and deter frivolous or vexatious claims and defenses.”
A defence maintained without reasonable ground is within that language as plainly as a claim is.
Interest Runs From Service, Not From Judgment
This is the provision most likely to be missed, and it changes the arithmetic of delay.
NRS 17.130(2) provides that where no rate is set by contract, by law or in the judgment, “the judgment draws interest from the time of service of the summons and complaint until satisfied.” Not from the date of the judgment — from service.
The rate is benchmarked rather than fixed. The subsection sets it by reference to “the prime rate at the largest bank in Nevada as ascertained by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions on January 1 or July 1, as the case may be, immediately preceding the date of judgment,” with a margin the statute adds, and it “must be adjusted accordingly on each January 1 and July 1 thereafter until the judgment is satisfied.”
The practical consequence is that time between service and judgment is not neutral. On a claim that ultimately succeeds, that period accrues interest, which is part of why delay is not costless to a defendant.
Why Future Damages Are Treated Differently
The same subsection carves out one category, and the carve-out is precise.
Interest runs from service “except for any amount representing future damages, which draws interest only from the time of the entry of the judgment until satisfied.”
The logic is visible in the wording. Losses already incurred by the time proceedings began have been borne during the period since; losses that lie ahead have not. So the statute starts their interest at entry of the judgment rather than at service.
For a premises claim, that means the mix between what has already been lost and what is said to lie ahead affects how interest accrues, independently of the total.
What None of This Says About a Particular Case
These provisions describe what happens around a judgment. They do not say what a claim is worth, they do not indicate a range, and none of them can be used to estimate an outcome.
Nor does any of it apply automatically to a settlement, which is an agreement rather than a judgment. Its relevance to a negotiation is indirect: it is part of what each side is weighing when deciding whether to settle and on what terms.
Establishing the claim in the first place is a separate question entirely, and the Nevada slip and fall guide deals with it.
Discuss a Nevada Premises Claim
What a claim is worth is a question about evidence, not about formulas, and it is not one any page can answer from the outside. What can be useful in advance is understanding the machinery each side is weighing, because that is a large part of why offers land where they do.
Vaksman Khalfin, PC acts for injured people across Nevada from the firm’s Las Vegas office at 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150. The first consultation is free, and injury claims are handled on a contingency-fee basis: there is no upfront cost, attorney’s fees are owed only out of a recovery, and fees and case costs are separate items set out in the written agreement. Wider material sits in the Nevada personal injury guides.
Reviewed by Robert B. Vaksman, Partner, Vaksman Khalfin, PC (admitted in Nevada). Last reviewed: 10/30/2026
Frequently Asked Questions
No source states one, and this page does not. What Nevada law determines is the machinery around a judgment — which costs shift, when fees may be allowed, and from when interest runs — rather than what any claim is worth.
NRS 18.020 provides that costs "must be allowed of course to the prevailing party against any adverse party against whom judgment is rendered," including in an action for the recovery of money or damages above the threshold the section sets.
NRS 18.005 lists seventeen items, including clerks' fees, reporters' fees for depositions, jurors' fees, witness fees, interpreters, process service, bonds, photocopies, postage, and travel and lodging for depositions and discovery.
Within limits. The statute allows reasonable fees of not more than five expert witnesses, up to a per-expert amount it specifies, unless the court allows more after finding the circumstances of the testimony were of such necessity as to require a larger fee.
In defined situations. NRS 18.010(2) permits an allowance to a prevailing party where the recovery does not exceed a stated level, or without regard to recovery where a claim or defence "was brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party."
The paragraph refers to a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, third-party complaint "or defense," so a defence maintained without reasonable ground falls within the same language.
Under NRS 17.130(2), where no rate is otherwise provided, a judgment "draws interest from the time of service of the summons and complaint until satisfied." The rate is benchmarked to Nevada bank prime, as ascertained by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions, with a margin the statute sets, and it is reset twice a year.
No. Any amount representing future damages "draws interest only from the time of the entry of the judgment until satisfied."
