DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, DC ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the District of Columbia
DATE: [Date]
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
[General Counsel / Risk Management / Claims Representative]
[Manufacturer / Distributor / Retailer Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]
RE: PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIM - SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Claimant: [Client Full Name]
Date of Incident: [Date]
Product: [Product Name, Model Number, Serial Number]
Manufacturer: [Manufacturer Name]
Purchase Date/Location: [Date / Retailer Name]
Claim Number: [If assigned]
Dear [Recipient Name]:
This firm represents [Client Name] in connection with serious personal injuries caused by a defective [Product Name] designed, manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by your company. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement pursuant to District of Columbia law.
I. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Governing Law - Common Law Strict Liability
District of Columbia products liability claims are governed by common law strict liability based on Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, as adopted in Cottom v. McGuire Funeral Service, Inc., 262 A.2d 807 (D.C. 1970).
Key Elements for Strict Liability:
1. The defendant sold a product in a defective condition;
2. The product was unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer;
3. The seller is engaged in the business of selling such products;
4. The product reached the user without substantial change in condition; and
5. The defective condition was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
See Warner Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Boston, 654 A.2d 1272 (D.C. 1995).
B. Theories of Liability Recognized
The District of Columbia recognizes the following products liability theories:
1. Strict Liability:
Under D.C. law adopting Section 402A, manufacturers and sellers are strictly liable for injuries caused by products that are in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous. Beasley v. Petro Oil Co., Inc., 681 A.2d 1108 (D.C. 1996).
2. Negligence:
Traditional negligence claims for negligent design, manufacture, inspection, or failure to warn. Payne v. Soft Sheen Products, Inc., 486 A.2d 712 (D.C. 1985).
3. Breach of Warranty:
Express and implied warranty claims under D.C.'s UCC, D.C. Code Sections 28:2-313 through 28:2-315.
C. Defect Standards
The District of Columbia applies the following standards:
Consumer Expectations Test: The primary test in D.C. A product is defective if it fails to meet the safety expectations of an ordinary consumer. Warner Fruehauf, 654 A.2d at 1279.
Risk-Utility Test: May be applied in complex cases where consumer expectations are not adequate. Courts balance the product's utility against its risks.
D. Statute of Limitations
Under D.C. Code Section 12-301(8), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is three (3) years from the date of injury. This claim arises from an injury that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
E. Statute of Repose
The District of Columbia does not have a products liability statute of repose. Claims may be brought regardless of when the product was manufactured, provided they fall within the statute of limitations.
F. Contributory Negligence - CRITICAL WARNING
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS ONE OF ONLY FIVE JURISDICTIONS THAT FOLLOWS PURE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
Under D.C. law, any contributory negligence by the plaintiff is a complete bar to recovery. Wingfield v. People's Drug Store, Inc., 379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1977).
However:
- Contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proven by the defendant
- Product misuse that is foreseeable does not constitute contributory negligence
- Last clear chance doctrine may apply if defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the harm
Our client was not contributorily negligent: [Describe why client bears no fault]
G. Assumption of Risk
Assumption of risk remains a separate defense in the District of Columbia. To establish this defense, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff:
1. Knew of the specific danger
2. Appreciated the risk
3. Voluntarily encountered the risk
Crews v. Hollenbach, 751 A.2d 481 (D.C. 2000).
H. Joint and Several Liability
The District of Columbia follows traditional joint and several liability. Each defendant may be held liable for the full amount of damages, regardless of their percentage of fault. The plaintiff may collect the entire judgment from any defendant.
I. Punitive Damages
Punitive damages are available in the District of Columbia upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's conduct was willful, wanton, or malicious.
Requirements:
- Must demonstrate egregious conduct beyond ordinary negligence
- Must bear a reasonable relationship to compensatory damages
- No statutory cap on punitive damages
Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Breeden, 665 A.2d 929 (D.C. 1995).
II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - SPOLIATION WARNING
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this product and claim, including but not limited to:
Product-Related:
- [ ] The subject product and all component parts
- [ ] All exemplar products of the same make and model
- [ ] Design documents, specifications, and engineering drawings
- [ ] Manufacturing records for the subject product
- [ ] Quality control records and inspection reports
- [ ] Testing data and results (pre-market and post-market)
- [ ] Safety assessments and risk analyses
- [ ] FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) documents
- [ ] All versions of owner's manuals, instructions, warnings, and labels
Regulatory and Complaints:
- [ ] Communications with FDA, CPSC, NHTSA, or other regulatory agencies
- [ ] Consumer complaints involving this product
- [ ] Prior claims and lawsuits involving this product
- [ ] Recall notices and service bulletins
D.C. courts impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Holmes v. Amerex Rent-A-Car, 710 A.2d 846 (D.C. 1998). Destruction of evidence may result in adverse inferences and other sanctions at trial.
III. THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT
A. Product Identification
| Product Information | Details |
|---|---|
| Product Name | [Full Product Name] |
| Manufacturer | [Manufacturer Name and Address] |
| Model Number | [Model Number] |
| Serial Number | [Serial Number] |
| Date of Manufacture | [Date, if known] |
| Lot/Batch Number | [If known] |
| Date of Purchase | [Purchase Date] |
| Retailer/Seller | [Retailer Name and Location] |
| Purchase Price | $[Amount] |
B. Chain of Distribution
| Entity | Role | Contact |
|---|---|---|
| [Manufacturer Name] | Manufacturer | [Address] |
| [Component Supplier] | Component Manufacturer | [Address] |
| [Distributor Name] | Distributor | [Address] |
| [Retailer Name] | Retailer/Seller | [Address] |
IV. THE DEFECT
A. Nature of Defect - Design Defect
Under D.C. law, a design defect exists when the product, as designed, fails to meet the safety expectations of the ordinary consumer or when the risks of the design outweigh its utility. Warner Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. Boston, 654 A.2d 1272 (D.C. 1995).
Consumer Expectations Test:
The ordinary consumer would expect that:
[Describe what consumer would expect]
The [Product Name] failed to meet these expectations because:
[Describe how product failed expectations]
The [Product Name] contains a design defect in that:
[Detailed description of design defect]
Alternative Safer Design:
A feasible alternative design existed that would have prevented this injury:
[Describe alternative design]
B. Nature of Defect - Manufacturing Defect
A manufacturing defect exists when the specific product departed from its intended design, making it more dangerous than intended. The product at issue:
[Describe manufacturing defect if applicable]
C. Nature of Defect - Failure to Warn
Under D.C. law, a manufacturer has a duty to warn of known dangers and dangers that should have been known through reasonable testing. Payne v. Soft Sheen Products, Inc., 486 A.2d 712 (D.C. 1985).
Adequacy of Warnings:
A warning must be:
- Clear and understandable
- Convey the nature and extent of the danger
- Prominently displayed
- Adequate to inform the user how to avoid the danger
Learned Intermediary Doctrine: D.C. recognizes this doctrine for prescription drugs and medical devices.
The warnings provided were inadequate because:
[Describe warning deficiencies]
V. THE INCIDENT
A. How the Injury Occurred
On [Date], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe what client was doing with the product]:
[Detailed narrative of the incident]
B. Foreseeable Use
Our client was using the product in a manner that was:
- [ ] Intended by the manufacturer
- [ ] Foreseeable by the manufacturer
- [ ] In accordance with provided instructions
C. No Contributory Negligence
Our client exercised reasonable care at all times. Under D.C. law, foreseeable misuse does not bar recovery. Our client bears no fault in this incident.
VI. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Strict Liability Under Section 402A
All elements of D.C. strict liability are satisfied:
-
Defective Condition: The product contained a [design / manufacturing / warning] defect as described above.
-
Unreasonably Dangerous: The product failed to meet the safety expectations of an ordinary consumer.
-
Defect Existed When Product Left Defendant's Control: The defect was present at the time of sale.
-
Causation: The defect was a proximate cause of our client's injuries.
-
Damages: Our client has suffered substantial damages as detailed herein.
B. Negligence
Your company breached its duty of care by:
-
Negligent Design: Designing a product with an unreasonably dangerous characteristic when safer alternatives existed.
-
Negligent Manufacture: Failing to implement adequate quality control procedures.
-
Negligent Failure to Warn: Failing to provide adequate warnings of known dangers.
C. Breach of Warranty
Express Warranty (D.C. Code Section 28:2-313):
Your company expressly warranted that [describe warranty]. This warranty was breached.
Implied Warranty of Merchantability (D.C. Code Section 28:2-314):
The product was not fit for its ordinary purpose due to the defect.
VII. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF DEFECT
Evidence of your company's prior knowledge of this defect includes:
- [ ] [Number] prior complaints regarding this defect
- [ ] [Number] prior injuries from this defect
- [ ] Recall or service bulletins issued
- [ ] Internal documents acknowledging the defect
Such prior knowledge supports an award of punitive damages for willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.
VIII. INJURIES AND DAMAGES
A. Injuries Sustained
As a direct and proximate result of the defective product, our client sustained:
Physical Injuries:
- [ ] [Injury 1]
- [ ] [Injury 2]
- [ ] [Injury 3]
Surgeries and Procedures:
- [ ] [Surgery 1]
- [ ] [Surgery 2]
Permanent Conditions:
- [ ] [Permanent condition 1]
- [ ] [Permanent condition 2]
B. Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider 1] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| [Provider 2] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]
C. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Non-Economic Damages
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Disfigurement
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- Inconvenience
E. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Disfigurement | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress | $[Amount] |
| Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL COMPENSATORY DAMAGES | $[Total] |
F. Punitive Damages
Your company's conduct warrants punitive damages. Your company knew of the defect and acted with willful, wanton, or malicious disregard for the safety of consumers.
IX. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability of your company under District of Columbia law and the severe injuries suffered by our client, we hereby demand:
$[DEMAND AMOUNT]
This demand will remain open for forty-five (45) days from the date of this letter, expiring at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on [Expiration Date].
X. CONCLUSION
This case involves a defective product that caused serious injuries to our client. Your company is strictly liable under District of Columbia law. Our client was not contributorily negligent, thus preserving the right to full recovery.
If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division, and to pursue this matter through trial.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
D.C. Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRODUCTS LIABILITY PRACTICE NOTES
-
[ ] Contributory Negligence: D.C. is one of only five jurisdictions following pure contributory negligence - any plaintiff fault bars recovery entirely. Carefully evaluate all facts and document plaintiff's reasonable care.
-
[ ] No Statute of Repose: D.C. does not have a products liability statute of repose.
-
[ ] Joint and Several Liability: D.C. follows traditional joint and several liability. Each defendant may be liable for the entire judgment.
-
[ ] Consumer Expectations Test: D.C. primarily uses the consumer expectations test for design defects.
-
[ ] Expert Testimony: Required to establish defect and causation in most cases. D.C. follows Frye standard for expert admissibility under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
-
[ ] Venue: Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division. D.C. Code Section 11-921.
-
[ ] Economic Loss Rule: D.C. recognizes the economic loss rule - purely economic losses without physical injury are generally not recoverable in tort. Aguilar v. RP MRP Washington Harbour, LLC, 98 A.3d 979 (D.C. 2014).
-
[ ] Federal Court Option: Because D.C. is not a state, diversity jurisdiction may be available in federal court for claims exceeding $75,000.
-
[ ] Last Clear Chance: This doctrine may apply to mitigate the harshness of contributory negligence if defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the harm.
District of Columbia products liability law is complex. This template must be reviewed and customized by a licensed D.C. attorney before use.