## Facts

- Robert Louis Olivero went to a residential construction site where Montgomery Lowe was working as a laborer and confronted him about construction delays.
- Olivero brandished a handgun and punched Lowe in the face.
- Lowe testified that Olivero pointed the gun at his head, threatened to kill him, and forced him to dismantle completed work while under threat.
- Lowe claimed physical pain, contusions, and emotional distress, including severe fear from the gun threat and coercion.
- Lowe did not obtain medical or psychological treatment for the alleged injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether Lowe’s testimony, without medical or psychological evidence, was sufficient to support compensatory damages for assault and battery.
2. Whether the district court improperly relied on companion criminal proceedings in deciding the civil case.
3. Whether denying closing argument in a bench trial required reversal.
4. Whether Lowe’s failure to serve a trial memorandum under a local rule required reversal.
5. Whether the evidence supported punitive damages and the $45,000 amount based on malice and oppression.
6. Whether Lowe was entitled to attorney’s fees under Nevada Arbitration Rule 20 and NRCP 37(c).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the compensatory damages awards for assault and battery.
- The court affirmed the $45,000 punitive damages award based on findings of malice and oppression.
- The court rejected claims of reversible procedural error concerning the trial court’s knowledge of related criminal proceedings, the lack of closing argument, and the trial memorandum service issue, finding no prejudice.
- The court affirmed denial of attorney’s fees sought under Nevada Arbitration Rule 20 and NRCP 37(c).

## Legal Principles

- In intentional tort cases, a plaintiff’s credible testimony may be sufficient to prove pain, suffering, and emotional distress and support compensatory damages, even without medical or psychological treatment evidence.
- Assault may be established by intentional conduct creating imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact; battery by harmful or offensive contact.
- Punitive damages may be imposed where the defendant’s conduct shows malice and oppression; violent threats with a firearm can satisfy that standard.
- Procedural irregularities in a bench trial do not warrant reversal absent a showing of prejudice affecting the outcome.
- Attorney’s fees under arbitration and discovery sanction rules require satisfaction of specified predicates; denial is affirmed where the trial court finds those requirements unmet.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court upheld compensatory awards for assault and battery based on Lowe’s testimony, sustained punitive damages for Olivero’s malicious and oppressive conduct at gunpoint, found no reversible prejudice from asserted procedural errors, and affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees under the arbitration and discovery rules.


Olivero v. Lowe, 995 P.2d 1023 (Nev. 2000)