Nevada's 'Lizzy's Law' Creates New Liability Rules for Bounce Houses and Inflatable Devices

Assembly Bill 198, effective January 1, 2026, establishes mandatory safety requirements for commercial inflatable devices in Nevada — and explicitly states that failure to comply constitutes negligence. Here is what injury victims need to know.

What Lizzy's Law Requires

Assembly Bill 198, signed by the governor and effective January 1, 2026, creates a comprehensive regulatory framework for commercial inflatable device operators in Nevada. The law applies to bounce houses, inflatable slides, obstacle courses, and similar devices operated for commercial purposes at events, parks, or other venues. It was named in memory of a 9-year-old girl who died in 2019 when wind blew a bounce house into power lines in the Reno area.

Under AB 198, operators must hold all required state and local business licenses and carry liability coverage — either a commercial insurance policy or a surety bond — of no less than $1 million. Operators must keep a logbook for each inflatable device documenting inspections, maintenance, and safety checks — and those records must be retained for at least two years. Devices must be anchored using both stakes and weights, and operators are prohibited from allowing use when wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour.

Most significantly for civil injury cases, AB 198 explicitly provides that failure to comply with its requirements constitutes negligence. This is a clear legislative statement that establishes the legal standard for injury claims: an operator who permitted use during high winds, failed to properly anchor a device, or did not carry required insurance has committed a statutory act of negligence that a court can use as the basis for civil liability.

What Lizzy's Law Means for Injury Victims

The explicit negligence provision in AB 198 is a significant development for civil injury claims arising from inflatable device incidents. Before Lizzy's Law, a plaintiff's attorney had to establish negligence through general negligence standards — proving that the operator failed to exercise reasonable care. Now, any violation of the law's specific requirements — failure to anchor, failure to monitor wind speeds, failure to maintain inspection records, failure to carry required insurance — is itself evidence of negligence.

This matters because it lowers the evidentiary threshold for injured parties. Rather than needing to establish what a reasonable operator should have done in the abstract, a plaintiff can point to specific statutory violations and argue that those violations are the basis for liability. Establishing statutory negligence is generally simpler and more straightforward than establishing negligence under a common-law reasonable care standard.

Injuries from inflatable device incidents can be serious: broken bones, spinal injuries, head trauma, and in the most severe cases, fatalities. Children are particularly vulnerable because of their lighter weight relative to the forces involved in collapses, tip-overs, or falls from height. If a child or adult was injured at a bounce house or inflatable event in Nevada after January 1, 2026, AB 198's requirements are the first thing to investigate in evaluating a civil claim.

How These Claims Work in Practice

A civil injury claim arising from an inflatable device incident in Nevada would proceed similarly to other premises liability claims, with the addition of AB 198's statutory framework as a foundation. An attorney investigating the claim would first obtain the operator's inspection logbooks (required by the law), verify insurance compliance, check wind speed records for the time of the incident, and document anchoring practices. Each of these elements is now a matter of statutory obligation — meaning the operator is required to have the documentation, and failure to produce it is itself evidentiary.

Liability may extend beyond the device operator. The property owner where the event occurred may bear liability for permitting non-compliant operators on their premises. Event organizers who contracted with the operator may face liability for failure to verify compliance. And if the device itself was defective in a way that contributed to the injury, the manufacturer may face product liability exposure alongside the operator and venue.

The statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Nevada is two years from the date of injury. For injuries occurring in 2026, that deadline runs through 2028. However, consulting an attorney as early as possible is important because evidence — wind speed records, inspection logs, witness accounts, event photography — can disappear quickly if preservation steps are not taken promptly.

What to Do If You Were Injured at an Inflatable Device Event

If you or a family member was injured at a bounce house, inflatable slide, or similar device in Nevada, several steps can protect your legal rights. Seek medical care first — both because your health matters and because a documented medical record establishes the injury and its severity, which is foundational to any civil claim. Do not delay medical care waiting to decide whether to pursue a legal claim.

Preserve evidence. Take photos of the device, the anchoring setup, any visible damage, and the area surrounding the incident location. If wind was a factor, note the conditions and, if possible, record them on video. Identify other witnesses and get their contact information. This on-scene evidence is extremely difficult to recreate later and can be decisive in establishing what actually happened.

Contact a personal injury attorney. Litigators for Justice offers free, confidential consultations for injury victims in Nevada. We will review the facts of your situation, explain how AB 198's requirements may apply to your case, and advise on the strength of any potential civil claim — with no cost and no obligation. Nevada law is clear: when operators fail to follow the safety requirements that exist specifically to prevent the harm you experienced, they can be held accountable.

6 Violations of Lizzy's Law That Can Support a Civil Injury Claim

AB 198 is explicit that non-compliance constitutes negligence. These are the specific violations most likely to be relevant in an inflatable device injury case.

1. Operating in wind speeds above 15 mph: The wind threshold is concrete and measurable. Weather data, on-scene witness accounts, and meteorological records from the time of an incident can establish whether this prohibition was violated. This is among the clearest forms of statutory negligence.
2. Failure to anchor with both stakes and weights: AB 198 requires dual anchoring — stakes and weights together. An operator who used only one anchoring method, or who failed to anchor at all, is in clear violation of the statute regardless of whether wind was a factor in the incident.
3. No liability insurance or insufficient coverage: Operators without the required $1 million in coverage are in violation of the law. The absence of insurance also affects the practical recovery available to injured parties, making early identification of coverage status an important step in any claim investigation.
4. Missing or incomplete inspection logbooks: Required logbook records are evidence of whether the operator was actively maintaining safety compliance. Missing records may indicate either that no inspections were conducted or that records were destroyed — both of which have evidentiary implications in civil proceedings.
5. Unlicensed operator: The law requires operators to hold all applicable state and local business licenses. An unlicensed operator is in statutory violation, which can affect their ability to contest a negligence claim and may affect their insurance coverage.
6. Ignoring warning signs of device damage or deflation: AB 198's inspection requirements implicitly create a duty to respond to identified hazards. An operator who documented a hazard in an inspection log and continued to operate the device may face particularly strong liability exposure.

Frequently asked questions

Does Lizzy's Law apply to private (non-commercial) bounce house rentals?

AB 198 is specifically directed at commercial operators. A private family renting a bounce house for a birthday party is generally not subject to the same statutory obligations as a commercial event operator. However, the company that rented the device to the family is a commercial operator and may be subject to the law's requirements. An attorney can advise on which parties bear liability in a specific non-commercial rental situation.

Can a child who was injured at a bounce house in Nevada file a civil claim?

Yes. Minor children can file civil claims through a parent or guardian as their legal representative. Nevada's statute of limitations for personal injury typically runs from when the injury occurred for adults, but for minors it may be extended — an attorney can explain the specific rules applicable to a child's claim.

What if the operator argues the wind was below 15 mph when the incident occurred?

This is a factual dispute resolvable through evidence. National Weather Service records, private weather station data, and on-scene witness accounts can all establish actual wind conditions. An attorney experienced in inflatable device cases knows how to obtain and present wind data effectively.

Is this general information or legal advice?

This is general information about Nevada law, not legal advice. Every injury situation involves specific facts, timelines, and parties that affect what legal options exist. For advice specific to your situation, contact Litigators for Justice for a free, confidential consultation. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship or should be relied upon as specific legal guidance.