Personal Injury Complaint - Slip and Fall - District of Columbia
COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE – PREMISES LIABILITY
(Slip-and-Fall/Trip-and-Fall Personal Injury Action — Superior Court of the District of Columbia)
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| [PLAINTIFF FULL LEGAL NAME], | Plaintiff, |
| v. | Civil Action No.: ____________ |
| [DEFENDANT FULL LEGAL NAME], | Defendant. |
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA — CIVIL DIVISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Parties
- Jurisdiction and Venue
- Factual Allegations
- Count I – Negligence (Premises Liability)
- Damages
- Prayer for Relief
- Jury Demand
- Certification & Signature Block
- Verification (Optional)
1. PARTIES
-
Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF FULL LEGAL NAME] (“Plaintiff”) is an individual resident of [COUNTY/STATE OF RESIDENCE] and, at all relevant times, was lawfully present on the premises described herein.
-
Defendant [DEFENDANT FULL LEGAL NAME] (“Defendant”) is a [corporation/limited liability company/individual/other] organized under the laws of [STATE OF FORMATION] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS], and is the owner, lessee, operator, manager, and/or controller of the premises located at [PREMISES ADDRESS] (the “Premises”).
a. [If applicable] Defendant transacts substantial business in the District of Columbia and may be served through its registered agent:
[REGISTERED AGENT NAME & ADDRESS].
b. [If the Defendant is the District of Columbia or a D.C. agency, insert notice-of-claim compliance language referencing D.C. Code § 12-309.]
2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
-
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under D.C. Code § 11-921(a)(6), which grants the Superior Court jurisdiction, regardless of the amount in controversy, over civil actions at law or in equity brought in the District of Columbia, subject to subsection (b).
-
The events giving rise to this action occurred at [PREMISES ADDRESS] in the District of Columbia. D.C. Code § 13-423 is a personal-jurisdiction statute, not a venue statute.
-
Personal jurisdiction over Defendant exists because Defendant:
a. owns, uses, or possesses real property situated in the District (§ 13-423(a)(5)); and/or
b. regularly conducts business in the District (§ 13-422).
3. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
-
On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully present on the Premises for the purpose of [PURPOSE, e.g., shopping, visiting, employment].
-
At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff encountered a dangerous and hazardous condition, namely [DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF HAZARD, e.g., “an accumulation of water on the tiled floor near the entryway,” “a raised, broken concrete slab,” etc.] (the “Hazardous Condition”).
-
The Hazardous Condition was not open and obvious to a reasonable person exercising ordinary perception and caution under the circumstances.
-
Defendant, through its agents, servants, and/or employees, knew or, by the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the Hazardous Condition because:
a. [Actual Notice] Defendant’s employees had observed, created, or been informed about the condition; and/or
b. [Constructive Notice] The condition existed for such a period of time that Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable inspection and maintenance procedures, should have discovered and remedied it. -
Defendant failed to warn Plaintiff of the Hazardous Condition and failed to make the area reasonably safe, in violation of Defendant’s duty of reasonable care under the circumstances owed to persons lawfully on the Premises under District of Columbia premises-liability law.
-
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff slipped/tripped, fell, and sustained severe bodily injuries, including but not limited to [SPECIFY INJURIES, e.g., “fractured left ankle, torn ligaments, lumbar spine sprain”], resulting in pain, suffering, disability, medical expenses, and lost wages.
-
Plaintiff has incurred, and will continue to incur, medical and related expenses in an amount to be proven at trial, and has suffered loss of earnings and earning capacity.
4. COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY)
-
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 12 as though fully set forth herein.
-
Defendant, as owner, lessee, operator, manager, and/or controller of the Premises, owed Plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances to maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition, to correct dangerous conditions of which Defendant knew or reasonably should have known, and to warn of hazards not obvious to a person exercising ordinary care. Smith v. Arbaugh's Restaurant, Inc., 469 F.2d 97 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
-
Defendant breached its duty of care by, inter alia:
a. Failing to properly inspect and maintain the area where the Hazardous Condition existed;
b. Failing to remedy or cordon off the Hazardous Condition;
c. Failing to warn Plaintiff and others of the existence of the Hazardous Condition;
d. Failing to establish and enforce safety policies or procedures adequate to discover and correct such hazards; and
e. Otherwise acting with carelessness and negligence under the circumstances. -
Defendant’s breaches were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
-
As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscience of a jury, including but not limited to: medical expenses (past and future), loss of earnings and earning capacity, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other general damages.
Contributory Negligence Defense Notice
- Defendant may assert that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent. Plaintiff denies any contributory negligence. The District of Columbia is one of a small number of jurisdictions that retains pure contributory negligence: any fault by Plaintiff that proximately contributed to the injury, however slight, would ordinarily bar recovery in full, subject to the last-clear-chance doctrine. Massengale v. Pitts, 737 A.2d 1029 (D.C. 1999). Plaintiff pleads that any such defense lacks merit or, alternatively, that Defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury.
5. DAMAGES
-
Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1–18.
-
Special Damages (Economic):
a. Past medical expenses: $[AMOUNT]
b. Future medical expenses: $[AMOUNT]
c. Past lost wages: $[AMOUNT]
d. Future loss of earning capacity: $[AMOUNT]
e. Other out-of-pocket expenses: $[AMOUNT] -
General Damages (Non-Economic):
a. Pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life in an amount to be determined at trial. -
Punitive Damages:
Plaintiff reserves the right to seek punitive damages under D.C. common law, which does not impose a fixed statutory cap, should discovery reveal that Defendant's conduct amounted to actual malice, willful and wanton misconduct, or reckless/outrageous disregard for the safety of persons on the Premises.
6. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant as follows:
A. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
B. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;
C. Costs of suit herein incurred;
D. Reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to any applicable statutory or contractual basis;
E. Punitive damages, if warranted; and
F. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
7. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 38.
8. CERTIFICATION & SIGNATURE BLOCK
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME] (D.C. Bar No. ________)
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[TELEPHONE]
[EMAIL]
Counsel for Plaintiff
Dated: [DATE]
9. VERIFICATION (Optional but recommended if Plaintiff is pro se or if required by insurer)
I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], being first duly sworn, depose and state that I am the Plaintiff in this action; I have read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof; the same is true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
____________________________________
[PLAINTIFF NAME]
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of __________, 20__.
____________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: __________
END OF TEMPLATE – PERSONAL INJURY COMPLAINT (D.C.)
About this template
- Last updated
- September 6, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- District of Columbia
- Category
- Personal Injury
Legal authority
- D.C. Code § 12-301(8) (3-year residual limitation where no other period is specially prescribed)
- D.C. Code § 11-921 (Superior Court civil subject-matter jurisdiction)
- D.C. Code § 13-423 (long-arm personal jurisdiction)
- D.C. Code § 12-309 (notice-of-claim requirement for suits against the District of Columbia)
- Smith v. Arbaugh's Restaurant, Inc., 469 F.2d 97 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (reasonable-care standard for lawful entrants)
- Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 24-SP-0003 (D.C. Nov. 20, 2025) (distinct duties for known and undiscovered trespassers)
- Massengale v. Pitts, 737 A.2d 1029 (D.C. 1999) (pure contributory negligence bars recovery for any plaintiff fault)
- D.C. Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 38 (jury demand)
- D.C. Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 4 (summons and service; 60-day service deadline under Rule 4(m))
Personal injury cases are brought by people who were hurt because of someone else's carelessness: car crashes, slip and falls, defective products, and more. Demand letters, settlement agreements, and court filings in these cases have to document the injuries, the medical treatment, the lost income, and the exact legal basis for holding the other side responsible. Well-prepared paperwork is what drives higher settlements and forces insurers to take the claim seriously.
Not legal advice
This template is provided for informational purposes. We recommend having an attorney review any legal document before signing, especially for high-value or complex matters.
Checked against the law it cites
The statutes this template relies on are listed under Legal authority.
Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 24-SP-0003 (D.C. Nov. 20, 2025) (checked October 14, 2026): "The distinct standards of care for licensees and invitees under the common law no longer exist in this jurisdiction. The standard of care for persons lawfully upon the premises is reasonable care under the circumstances."
Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, No. 24-SP-0003 (D.C. Nov. 20, 2025) (checked October 14, 2026): "Otherwise, a common carrier generally owes an undiscovered trespasser only a duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring him or her."
Draft your Personal Injury Complaint - Slip and Fall in the editor
Answer a few questions, let the AI editor draft each section from your answers, review it, and download Word and PDF. $99 one time, or $249 per month for every document and every Ezel app.