Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 455 - EXCAVATIONS AND HIGH-VOLTAGE LINES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 455.010 (2026)

Erection of fence or other safeguard around excavation, hole or shaft required

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 455.010  Erection of fence or other safeguard around excavation, hole or shaft required.  Any person or persons, company or corporation, who shall dig, sink or excavate, or cause the same to be done, or being the owner or owners, or in the possession under any lease or contract, of any shaft, excavation or hole, whether used for mining or otherwise, or whether dug, sunk or excavated for the purpose of mining, to obtain water, or for any other purpose, within this State, shall, during the time they may be employed in digging, sinking or excavating, or after they may have ceased work upon or abandoned the same, erect, or cause to be erected, good and substantial fences or other safeguards, and keep the same in good repair, around such works or shafts, sufficient to guard securely against danger to persons and animals from falling into such shafts or excavations.

      [1:16:1866; B § 109; BH § 290; C § 271; RL § 3233; NCL § 5630]

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1958–2019 · leading case: Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 98 P.3d 678 (Nev. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Atkinson v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 98 P.3d 678 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 14× “Jury instructions At trial, Atkinson proposed a jury instruction on the issue of negligence per se, based on NRS 455.010, which governs the erection of fences and other safeguards around holes, excavations and shafts.”
Boland v. Nevada Rock & Sand Co., 894 P.2d 988 (Nev. 1995). · cites it 7× “Boland alleges that respondents disregarded a known safety procedure because they did not provide safeguards around the excavation as required in NRS 455.010. However, respondents are not required to comply with this statute, and therefore malice cannot be established by showing…”
Ross v. Carson Constr., Gen. Concrete, 803 P.2d 657 (Nev. 1990). · cites it 18× “The Rosses filed a motion for reconsideration on December 16, 1989, asserting that the duty imposed by NRS 455.010 1 to safeguard open excavations superseded the common law duty.”
Dixon v. Simpson, 332 P.2d 656 (Nev. 1958). · cites it 2× “NRS 455.010 provides, “Any person * * * who shall dig, sink or excavate, or cause the same to be done, or being the owner or owners, or in the possession under any lease or contract, of any shaft, excavation or hole, whether used for mining or otherwise, * * * within this state,…”
Kimberlin v. Lear, 500 P.2d 1022 (Nev. 1972). · cites it 6× “We view NRS 455.010 [2] as implying a continuing responsibility upon persons who may have lost the right of possession, authority or power to barricade the holes or inform the buyer that they exist.”
Prescott v. Slide Fire Solutions, LP (D. Nev. 2019). “10 2004) (holding that NRS 455.010, which requires that excavators erect physical safeguards 11 around excavations, applies to the plaintiff who fell into an excavation pit).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.