## Facts

- Lawrence D. Hall visited Reno in March 1992 for a training class and went with classmates to the Limelite nightclub, operated by SSF, Inc.
- The group paid a cover charge, found the club inactive, and decided to leave shortly thereafter.
- The group requested a refund; the manager, Paul Sonner, refused, and an argument occurred in the vestibule near the entrance.
- During the dispute, security guard John Handka struck Hall in the jaw, causing injury.
- Hall sued Handka and SSF, asserting intentional assault and battery, vicarious liability, and negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention.
- To support the negligent-employment claims, Hall sought to introduce evidence that Handka had a violent history, including an alleged dishonorable military discharge for violence and involvement in five prior bouncer altercations.
- The trial court excluded this evidence as improper character evidence and declined to consider it for any purpose.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to award future medical expenses despite expert medical testimony indicating future treatment was reasonably probable.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to receive and consider evidence of Handka’s prior violent conduct and background as relevant to SSF’s negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded.
- The court held the trial court erred in refusing to award future medical expenses where competent medical evidence showed future treatment was reasonably probable.
- The court held the trial court erred in refusing to consider the proffered prior-acts/background evidence for the limited purpose of proving SSF’s knowledge or reason to know of Handka’s dangerous propensities in connection with negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

## Legal Principles

- Future medical expenses are recoverable when supported by competent medical evidence establishing that future treatment is reasonably probable.
- A factfinder may not arbitrarily disregard uncontradicted expert testimony on reasonably probable future medical needs without a rational, record-based basis.
- In negligent hiring, supervision, or retention claims, evidence of an employee’s prior similar misconduct may be admissible to prove the employer’s notice, foreseeability, and breach (knowledge or reason to know of dangerous propensities), even if the same evidence would be improper if offered solely to show propensity regarding the underlying incident.
- Excluding such evidence categorically as “character evidence,” without considering its permissible purpose in an employer-negligence theory, is legal error.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court required reconsideration of future medical damages supported by competent medical proof and required the trial court to consider prior-incident/background evidence when offered to show employer notice and foreseeability in negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claims, remanding for further proceedings consistent with those rules.


Hall v. SSF, Inc., 930 P.2d 94 (Nev. 1996)