Nevada Rejects Calder’s Jurisdictional Effects Test in Negligence Cases

By John Delikanakis and Koryn Thomas¹
 
On June 18, 2025, the Nevada Supreme Court held in Whitley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (2025), that Calder v. Jones’ “effects test”² applies only in intentional tort cases. The opinion provides an analysis of the “purposeful availment” and “purposeful direction” tests by the Nevada Supreme Court that may aid businesses and their lawyers in navigating multi-state tort litigation involving Nevada.
 
Facts and Procedural History

The case arose out of a shooting that occurred on a Greyhound bus traveling from Redding, California to Los Angeles, California.³ One passenger, Rose, who was twenty-four weeks pregnant, was shot multiple times.⁴ Rose underwent several surgeries during which her unborn child, later known as M.W., experienced fetal heart failure. Doctors performed an emergency C-section. M.W. survived but has since required constant medical supervision.⁵

M.W.’s father, Brian W., sued Greyhound on behalf of M.W. in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada.⁶ The complaint alleged negligence and negligent hiring, training, retaining, supervising, and equipping. Greyhound moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.⁷ The district court granted the motion, holding that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction under the Calder effects test, as Greyhound did not “purposefully direct” its conduct toward Nevada.⁸
 
“Purposeful Availment” Test

The traditional test for personal jurisdiction is the “purposeful availment” test. Under this test, a court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident entity if “(1) the entity has ‘purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or purposefully directed its conduct towards the forum state; and (2) the cause of action arose from the [entity’s] purposeful contact or activities in connection with the forum state, such that it is reasonable to exercise personal jurisdiction.’”⁹
 
Calder Effects (“Purposeful Direction”) Test

Calder provides an alternative jurisdictional test for intentional torts. In Calder, the U.S. Supreme Court held that California could exercise jurisdiction over two Florida journalists who had written and edited a defamatory article about a California resident.¹⁰ The Court reasoned that the journalists’ conduct was not “mere untargeted negligence” but deliberate action aimed at California.¹¹ Under Calder, a court may exercise jurisdiction if “the defendant ‘(1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.’”¹² Given the intentionality requirement, courts have limited Calder to intentional torts such as defamation, trademark infringement, and fraud.¹³ However, in Whitley, the Nevada District Court applied the Calder test to assess personal jurisdiction in a negligence suit.¹⁴
 
The Nevada Supreme Court Opinion

Though affirming the dismissal of the case, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected the district court’s application of the Calder effects test to determine jurisdiction.¹⁵ The Court noted that the use of the effects test is dependent on whether the defendant’s alleged tortious conduct was intentional.¹⁶ In this case, while the shooter’s actions were intentional, the claims against Greyhound were grounded solely in negligence.¹⁷ Thus, applying the Calder test was inappropriate.¹⁸
 
The Court explained that the difference between determining jurisdiction for unintentional and intentional torts lies in the difference between the terms “purposeful availment” and “purposefully directed.”¹⁹ “Purposeful availment” assesses whether a defendant’s conduct within a state justifies bringing them to court there.²⁰ Conversely, the “purposefully directed” language from Calder involves an analysis of actions taken outside the forum state which are intentionally aimed at and the effects of which are felt in the forum state.²¹
 
Even when applying the correct test, the Court found that Greyhound was not subject to suit in Nevada.²² Greyhound availed itself of the laws of Nevada, as it was registered in the state and had seventeen operating bus stations.²³ The company also provided paid services to Nevada residents and advertised within the state.²⁴ However, the cause of action in this case did not arise from these contacts.²⁵ Instead, the case involved a California resident shooting another passenger on a bus traveling between California cities.²⁶ Therefore, Nevada courts lacked jurisdiction.²⁷
 
The Takeaway

The Whitley opinion provides important clarification on the scope of the Calder effects test in Nevada, confirming that it applies exclusively to intentional tort claims. For multi-state businesses, this distinction is essential to navigating the complexities of jurisdictional challenges in tort litigation. The decision reinforces that merely operating in Nevada does not automatically subject a business to litigation in Nevada’s courts.