Call Today!





At Eric Roy Law Firm, our Mission is to take a genuine interest in our clients, to understand their objectives, and to exceed their expectations. Our car accident and personal injury law firm works hard to provide superior legal services in a timely, effective, and efficient manner. You can expect nothing less than the highest standards of professional integrity when you work with us.


No matter how you were injured, our goal remains the same. We want to provide you with the highest level of service and ensure that you are well taken care of during and following this process.

We are happy to come to you for your initial consultation with our office. We know that transportation can be difficult for some; especially after a car accident. We schedule a lunch between every client and Mr. Roy. This allows Mr. Roy to better understand his clients and thus better serve his clients. We know that you have enough to worry about and we're here to fight on your behalf and to make sure that your needs are met.

You remain our priority from the moment we begin working on your case until it has been favorably resolved.

Contact our Las Vegas car accident and personal injury attorney today – free consultations to injured clients!



Personal injury attorney Eric Roy secures justice on behalf of his clients. The numerous awards and client testimonials that Eric has garnered over the years speak volumes about the results he is able to achieve.

Eric has received significant recognition in Las Vegas. He was recognized as one of the Top 40 Trial Lawyers Under 40 by the National Trial Lawyers, as one of the Top 10 Attorneys Under the Age of 40 by the National Academy of Personal Injury Attorneys, and he was named in Desert Companion Magazine as one of Nevada's Top Lawyers.

With the Eric Roy Law Firm on your side, you can be confident in the outcome of your personal injury case!

Eric Roy Personal Injury Attorney

Working With Attorney Eric Roy

Eric Roy Personal Injury Attorney

Working With Attorney Eric Roy

Injury Trials: Direct Examination

     Direct examination is its own unique skill set which is sometimes taken for granted by practitioners.  The reason for this is because it can seem like such a simple task.  It doesn’t require the intricate preparation of cross examination because there are typically no impeachments necessary.  Favorable witnesses are easier to navigate than hostile witnesses at times.  That being said, we need to always follow the fundamentals of direct examination.  Beyond the fundamentals there are specific tactics which should be employed specifically in the plaintiff’s personal injury trial.

Demonstratives in Trial

     As we know, people have their own unique learning styles.  Generally speaking there are auditory, visual and tactile learners.  This simply means that people generally learn best by either listening, seeing, or touching and experiencing.  However, although we all have a more dominant learning style, we still use these three learning mechanisms to gather and process information.  To this end, the more we as trial lawyers can use multiple mechanisms of communication, the more persuasive we can be.

Injury Trials: Defeating Ambiguity

     I wrote this blog/article primarily for my own, Eric Roy, and my staff’s benefit.  These concepts were first introduced to me by Rick Friedman who is considered one of the best plaintiff’s trial lawyers in the country.  His concepts have been incorporated by other great trial lawyers such as Don Keenan amongst others.  For a thorough understanding of the material I direct you to any of the Rick Friedman publications which provide a wealth of information.  In particular, check out Rules of the Road, written by Rick Friedman and Patrick Malone. 


     Once the breach of the duty is established, the only requirement left is to determine if the Plaintiff was harmed by the Defendant's negligent act and, if so, compensate the victim.  Generally, in determining damages the Defendant's culpability is of no consequence, unless punitive damages are assigned. 


Cross Examination on Industry Standards

     We win cases with exceptional cross examination.  The reason why cross examination is so powerful is that this is the point in our trial when hostile witnesses can testify to our positive facts.  When our own witnesses testify, they do so from a point of bias, and the jurors see this.  When hostile witnesses testify to these same exact facts then the validity of that testimony is no longer in question.  This is because hostile witnesses do not possess the same bias as our own witnesses do.  Thus when we can get positive facts out of hostile witnesses we always prefer to do this as oppo

Injury Trials: Cross Examination

     There are some fundamentals of cross examination which will apply in virtually all trials.  For instance, we should never ask a question we don’t know the answer to.  I typically won’t ask a question unless I can impeach a bad answer or otherwise expect that the answer cannot hurt my case no matter how answered.  To do this I find that depositions are of key importance.  If you don’t have a deposition transcript to avail yourself to then look for any writings or other evidence you can use to impeach the witness.  Once you have an impeachment tool you can control your witness.  Then use

Cross Examination and Impeachment of Lay Witness

     Cross examination can be an incredibly powerful tool in trial.  Cross examination allows us use leading questions unlike direct examination.  Cross examination also allows for the examining lawyer to impeach of the witness.  When we impeach a witness we demonstrate that the witness either intentionally lied on the stand or otherwise testified falsely because of memory imperfections.  To demonstrate the lie or faulty memory the cross examiner typically relies on evidence of prior statements made by that same witness.  These prior statements are inconsistent with current statements the w

Course and Scope

     This blog is intended to analyze and distinguish J.C. Penny Co. v. Gravelle and Prell Hotel Corp. v. Antonocci.  These Nevada Supreme Court cases contend primarily with the issue of course and scope.  In both cases which were heard in 1945 and 1970 respectively defendant employees battered respective plaintiffs during work hours.  The question in both cases became whether the employers of these employees would be held liable for their employee’s conduct.  Thus the question became whether the employees acted within the course and scope of their employment. 

Injury Trials: Closing Argument

     Each element of the trial process requires its own unique approach.  Closing argument is no different.  The very phrase “closing argument” is a bit of a misnomer, at least if you follow the approach recommended here.  The reason for this is that we, as plaintiff’s trial lawyers, really shouldn’t be “arguing” here.

Subscribe to Eric Roy Law Firm