The Legal Chronicle
Shooting at North Las Vegas Business. Potential Legal Claims?
We have over 25 years of experience representing victims of security failures across the United States, and we have recovered nearly $250 million dollars for our Clients. Read Our Legal Take below to find out what legal options are available to the victims of the shooting.
North Las Vegas, NV – Gunfire rang out at a business Thursday afternoon, April 30, 2026, leaving two people injured.
As reported by Fox5Vegas.com, “[t]he incident was reported just after 12 p.m. at a business located in the 1100 block of East Craig Road, near Bruce Street.”
According to the report, “[o]fficers responded and located two individuals suffering from apparent gunshot wounds. Both were transported to a local hospital and are currently in stable condition.”
KTNV.com is reporting, “[o]fficials said that two male suspects approached the male victim. One suspect “attempted to forcibly take a chain from the victim,” causing a fight in which the suspect pulled out a gun and fired multiple rounds. The juvenile male victim was hit, as well as a woman who was not involved in the fight.”
Legal Options Available to the Victims of the Shooting?
OUR LEGAL TAKE
FORMER CLIENT: I had lawyers calling me, and friends telling me who I should hire…I trusted in The Murray Law Firm and I’m glad I did.
Gas station patrons have a right to feel safe and secure while on the premises they are visiting. The level of security provided at the property is of significance, and is a relevant consideration when analyzing whether this shooting may have been prevented.
The following list of questions are also important in assessing whether this incident may have been avoided:
- Have prior incidents of violence been reported on or near the property?
- Was the property owner or manager aware of any suspicious activity prior to the shooting?
- Were any security personnel at the property?
- Were security measures added after any prior incidents?
- What protocol was in place to deter crime and protect the victims at the time of the shooting?
- Have authorities been to the property on prior occasions?
Property owners are generally required to protect against foreseeable harm to anyone and everyone legally on the premises. Should the investigation into this incident reveal facts that establish that the property owner or management lacked adequate security to protect its visitors, the victims may seek justice and elect to pursue legal claims and substantial compensation for their injuries.
The Murray Law Firm has extensive and successful experience in handling security negligence claims on behalf of victims and their families, and suggests that an immediate, unbiased inspection of the property will need to be performed so as to limit evidence from being altered, damaged or destroyed. The complexities of pursuing a negligent security case are well understood by the legal team at The Murray Law Firm, and it is imperative that the victims retain a capable law firm who will work without delay to protect their interests.
Successful Legal Outcomes in Similar Cases.
The Murray Law Firm has a long history of representing victims of violence and security negligence, and we offer legal analysis to victims and potential Clients. We have obtained nearly $250 Million in verdicts and settlements for our Clients, including:
- A $29.25 million dollar verdict for a victim of an unsafe property.
- Settlement in excess of $10 million dollars for a victim of gun violence at an apartment complex.
- Settlement in excess of $10 million dollars for a family who lost a loved one to gun violence at a commercial property.
We offer our legal assistance, if desired. We represent our Clients on a contingency agreement, which generally means that no fees or payments are owed until and unless we recover. Anyone seeking further information or legal representation is encouraged to contact us via e-mail (click here) or by telephone at 888-842-1616. Consultations are free and confidential.
How to Choose and Hire the Right Attorney (Click Here)
solicitation, that attorney is in violation of Rule 7.3 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. This Rule has been adopted by most states, and some states go further to prohibit or limit contact by attorneys via methods such as mail or e-mail. Unethical and unprofessional solicitation by an attorney or their representative is likely a good sign that an injured victim should stay away from that attorney. An injured victim should seek to be represented by an attorney who is capable of advocating within the confines of the law, and an attorney who fails to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct is probably not the best fit. In fact, any such attorney should be immediately reported to the local State Bar Association.
Over 10 years ago, The Murray Law Firm founded S.A.C.’E.M., the Stop Ambulance Chasing Ethical Movement. This campaign was designed to combat theaggressive, unethical, and sometimes illegal actions of lawyers or their representatives engaging in what has become commonly know as “ambulance chasing” or “case running.” Attempts by attorneys or their representatives to directly contact victims regarding potential legal representation has increased significantly. These efforts have included telephone calls, letters, e-mails and in-person visits. We have also seen increased traffic on our websites from firms and entities who appear to be seeking information relating to possible legal claims for the purposes of soliciting legal representation from victims of crimes and negligent conduct.
