JILLEEN MANGERIS, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of TIMOTHY MANGERIS, TERRY MANGERIS and TRACY MANGERIS, Minors, Appellants, v. TERRY GORDON, Doing Business As VELVET TOUCH MASSAGE SALON; JUDY McWHIRTER; VELVET TOUCH, INC., a Nevada Corporation; HOWARD SENOR, Doing Business As VELVET TOUCH MASSAGE SALON, DOES I and II, Respondents, 94 Nev. 400

Summary

The decedent, a taxi driver, drove his passenger to the massage salon. Respondents learned that the passenger had committed violent criminal acts and was a fugitive from the law. The decedent later returned to the salon and picked up the passenger to transport him to another location. The passenger murdered the decedent. Appellants filed a negligence action, which was dismissed for failure to state a claim. They appealed the dismissal. In affirming, the court held that (1) respondents did not have a duty to warn the decedent of potential harm; (2) even assuming a special relationship existed, a reasonable person would not have foreseen a risk that the passenger would murder the decedent; (3) absent the foreseeability of such a risk, there was not duty to warn the decedent of the passenger's criminal conduct; and (4) neither the common law nor Nevada's compounding crimes statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 199.290, required a citizen to report a crime; and (5) mere silence was insufficient to ...