Premises Liability Complaint
PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT — NORTH DAKOTA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Caption
- Parties
- Jurisdiction and Venue
- Factual Allegations
- Dangerous Condition and Notice
- Duty of Care
- Count I — Negligence / Premises Liability
- Count II — Negligent Maintenance
- Comparative Fault
- Damages
- Jury Demand
- Prayer for Relief
CAPTION
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA
[JUDICIAL DISTRICT]
COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]
| [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME], | Case No. [____________] |
| Plaintiff, | |
| v. | |
| [DEFENDANT FULL NAME], | COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES |
| Defendant. | (Premises Liability) |
PARTIES
-
Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME] is an individual residing at [PLAINTIFF ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, North Dakota [ZIP CODE].
-
Defendant [DEFENDANT FULL NAME] is [an individual residing at / a corporation organized under the laws of [STATE], with its principal place of business at] [DEFENDANT ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, North Dakota [ZIP CODE].
- At all times relevant hereto, Defendant owned, operated, managed, maintained, and/or controlled the real property located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS] ("the Premises").
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
-
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to N.D. Const. Art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06, as this is a civil action in which the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.
-
Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 28-04-05, as the cause of action arose in this county.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
-
On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT], Plaintiff was lawfully present on the Premises located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], North Dakota, for the purpose of [PURPOSE OF VISIT, e.g., shopping, conducting business, visiting as a guest].
-
At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was a [lawful entrant / business invitee / social guest] on the Premises.
-
While on the Premises, Plaintiff [DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT, e.g., slipped and fell on an accumulation of ice near the entrance, tripped over a broken floor tile in the main aisle, was struck by a falling object from an improperly secured shelf].
-
As a direct and proximate result of the incident, Plaintiff suffered serious bodily injuries, including but not limited to [DESCRIBE INJURIES].
DANGEROUS CONDITION AND NOTICE
-
At the time of Plaintiff's injury, there existed a dangerous condition on the Premises, specifically [DESCRIBE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN DETAIL, e.g., an accumulation of ice and snow on the entrance walkway that had not been treated or removed, a broken floor tile creating an uneven surface, inadequate lighting in the stairwell].
-
The dangerous condition had existed for [DURATION OR DESCRIPTION OF TIME PERIOD], which was sufficient time for Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, to discover and remedy the condition.
-
Defendant had actual notice of the dangerous condition because [DESCRIBE BASIS FOR ACTUAL NOTICE, e.g., employees had reported the condition, prior incidents had occurred at the same location, maintenance logs reflect awareness of the hazard].
-
Alternatively, Defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition because the condition existed for a sufficient length of time that Defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, should have discovered and corrected it.
-
Despite having actual and/or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, Defendant failed to repair, remedy, guard, barricade, or warn of the dangerous condition.
DUTY OF CARE
- As the owner, operator, and/or controller of the Premises, Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to act as a reasonable person in maintaining the property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury, the seriousness of injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.
- Defendant's duty included, but was not limited to:
- ☐ Regularly inspecting the Premises to discover dangerous conditions;
- ☐ Repairing known hazards in a timely manner;
- ☐ Warning of dangerous conditions that could not be immediately remedied;
- ☐ Maintaining the Premises in a reasonably safe condition for lawful entrants.
COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE / PREMISES LIABILITY
-
Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
-
Defendant breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff by one or more of the following acts or omissions:
- ☐ Failing to maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition;
- ☐ Failing to inspect the Premises to discover the dangerous condition;
- ☐ Failing to repair or remedy the dangerous condition within a reasonable time;
- ☐ Failing to warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition;
- ☐ Failing to barricade or guard the dangerous condition;
- ☐ [OTHER SPECIFIC ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE]. -
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered the injuries and damages described herein.
COUNT II — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE
-
Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
-
Defendant negligently maintained the Premises by [DESCRIBE SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE FAILURES, e.g., failing to clear ice and snow from walkways, failing to repair a known structural defect, failing to maintain adequate lighting].
-
Defendant's negligent maintenance of the Premises was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.
COMPARATIVE FAULT
- Plaintiff was not at fault for the incident described herein, or alternatively, any fault attributable to Plaintiff was less than the combined fault of Defendant and all other persons who contributed to the injury.
DAMAGES
- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the following damages:
Economic Damages:
- ☐ Past medical expenses in the amount of $[AMOUNT];
- ☐ Future medical expenses estimated at $[AMOUNT];
- ☐ Lost wages and earning capacity in the amount of $[AMOUNT];
- ☐ Future lost wages and diminished earning capacity estimated at $[AMOUNT];
- ☐ Property damage in the amount of $[AMOUNT];
- ☐ Other economic losses: [DESCRIBE].
Non-Economic Damages:
- ☐ Physical pain and suffering, past and future;
- ☐ Mental anguish and emotional distress;
- ☐ Loss of enjoyment of life;
- ☐ Permanent impairment and/or disfigurement;
- ☐ Loss of consortium (if applicable).
JURY DEMAND
- Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as a matter of right.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant as follows:
- Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
- Economic damages including medical expenses, lost wages, and future care costs;
- Non-economic damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life;
- Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;
- Costs of suit, including filing fees and service costs;
- Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
[LAW FIRM NAME]
By: [________________________________]
[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq.
[BAR NUMBER]
[FIRM ADDRESS]
[CITY], [STATE] [ZIP CODE]
[TELEPHONE]
[EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff
Date: [__/__/____]
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]
I, [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME], being duly sworn, state that I have read the foregoing Complaint, and the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
[________________________________]
[PLAINTIFF FULL NAME]
Subscribed and sworn to before me this [____] day of [________], [____].
[________________________________]
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: [__/__/____]
STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES — NORTH DAKOTA
| Topic | Detail |
|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations | 6 years (N.D.C.C. § 28-01-16(5)) |
| Comparative Fault | Modified — 50% bar; plaintiff barred if fault is "as great as" combined fault of all defendants (N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02) |
| Duty Standard | General reasonable care for all lawful entrants (O'Leary v. Coenen; Makeeff v. City of Bismarck) |
| Notice Requirement | Actual or constructive notice required |
| Open & Obvious | Not an automatic bar; question of fact for trier of fact (Groleau v. Bjornson Oil Co., 2004) |
| Snow/Ice Rule | Natural accumulation rule applies generally, but not to stairs/entrances attached to buildings (Makeeff v. City of Bismarck; Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips) |
| Damages Caps | No general cap on noneconomic damages; punitive damages capped at greater of 2x compensatory or $250,000 (N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-11(4)) |
| Filing Court | District Court |
About This Template
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.
Important Notice
This template is provided for informational purposes. It is not legal advice. We recommend having an attorney review any legal document before signing, especially for high-value or complex matters.
Last updated: April 2026