AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Plaintiff, Roland Lucero and his company, R & L Straightline Tile, loaned $300,000 to a Las Vegas development company for a mixed-use real estate project, expecting a return of $360,000 one month later. The loan agreement was reviewed by Defendant, a licensed attorney, who failed to notify Plaintiff that the agreement did not secure the loan or inform him of the risks involved. Following a significant decline in the Las Vegas real estate market, the developer filed for bankruptcy, and Plaintiff was unable to recover any portion of the loan (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that Defendant negligently failed to inform them of the unsecured nature of the loan and the associated risks, leading to a substantial financial loss (para 3).
• Defendant: Contended that the collapse of the Las Vegas real estate market was an independent intervening cause that severed the connection between any alleged negligence on their part and the Plaintiff's financial loss (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in applying the doctrine of independent intervening cause to the facts of this case (para 1).
• Whether the decline in the Las Vegas real estate market constituted an independent intervening cause that severed the connection between Defendant’s professional negligence and Plaintiff’s losses (paras 4, 7-8).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment in favor of Defendant and remanded for consideration of damages in light of the opinion that the doctrine of independent intervening cause should not have been applied (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, found that the district court erred in applying the doctrine of independent intervening cause. The appellate court determined that the facts of the case presented a question of law, specifically whether the doctrine should have been considered by the fact finder in the first place, and reviewed the issue de novo. The court concluded that the decline in the real estate market did not constitute an independent intervening cause that could sever the connection between Defendant's negligence and Plaintiff's losses. The court reasoned that the harm suffered by Plaintiff was a foreseeable consequence of the risks created or increased by Defendant's professional negligence. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for a determination of damages using a comparative fault analysis (paras 5-14).