DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Minnesota ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Minnesota
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 under Minnesota law.
I. MINNESOTA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Products Liability Theories Recognized
Minnesota recognizes the following theories of products liability:
1. Strict Liability (Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 402A)
Minnesota adopted strict products liability in McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322, 154 N.W.2d 488 (1967). Under Minnesota law, a seller engaged in the business of selling a product is subject to strict liability for harm caused by a defective and unreasonably dangerous product.
2. Negligence
Traditional negligence claims are available for design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. Bilotta v. Kelley Co., 346 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 1984).
3. Breach of Warranty
Express and implied warranties under the Minnesota Uniform Commercial Code (Minn. Stat. Sections 336.2-313 through 336.2-315) provide additional bases for recovery.
B. Design Defect Standard
Minnesota applies a dual test for design defect claims:
1. Consumer Expectation Test: A product is defective if it is "dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer." Lee v. Crookston Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 290 Minn. 321, 188 N.W.2d 426 (1971).
2. Risk-Utility Test: Minnesota also considers risk-utility factors when the consumer expectation test is inadequate, particularly for complex products. Bilotta v. Kelley Co., 346 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 1984).
Risk-utility factors include:
- The usefulness and desirability of the product
- The likelihood and severity of harm
- The availability of a substitute product
- The manufacturer's ability to eliminate the danger
- The user's ability to avoid the danger
- The user's anticipated awareness of the danger
- The feasibility of spreading the loss
C. Statute of Limitations
Under Minn. Stat. Section 541.05, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including products liability, is four (4) years from the date of injury.
The discovery rule may toll the limitations period until the plaintiff knows or should have known of the injury and its cause. Dalton v. Dow Chem. Co., 280 Minn. 147, 158 N.W.2d 580 (1968).
This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
D. Statute of Repose
Minnesota does not have a general statute of repose for products liability claims. However, Minn. Stat. Section 541.051 provides a 10-year statute of repose for claims arising from improvements to real property.
E. Comparative Negligence
Minnesota follows modified comparative fault under Minn. Stat. Section 604.01. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, and recovery is barred if the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault.
Our client bears no responsibility for this incident. Our client:
- Used the product for its intended purpose
- Followed all instructions and warnings
- Acted as a reasonable consumer would
F. Punitive Damages
Under Minn. Stat. Section 549.20, punitive damages are available upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with "deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others."
Punitive damages may not be awarded based solely on negligence, even if gross. There must be evidence of intentional disregard of a known risk.
G. Joint and Several Liability
Under Minn. Stat. Section 604.02, Minnesota has modified joint and several liability:
- Defendants whose fault is greater than 50% are jointly and severally liable for the entire judgment
- Defendants whose fault is 50% or less are severally liable only for their percentage of fault
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 and quality control documents
- Testing data and safety assessments
- FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) documents
- Owner's manuals, instructions, warnings, and labels
- Marketing and advertising materials
Complaints and Claims:
- Consumer complaints involving this product or similar products
- Prior claims and lawsuits involving this product
- Regulatory correspondence (CPSC, FDA, NHTSA)
- Recall notices and service bulletins
Minnesota courts recognize spoliation sanctions. Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. 1995). Destruction of evidence may result in adverse inferences and other sanctions.
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
The following entities are in the chain of distribution and may bear liability under Minnesota law:
| Entity | Role |
|---|---|
| [Manufacturer Name] | Manufacturer |
| [Component Supplier] | Component Manufacturer |
| [Distributor Name] | Distributor |
| [Retailer Name] | Retailer/Seller |
C. Product Description
[Describe the product, its intended use, and relevant safety considerations]
IV. THE DEFECT
A. Nature of Defect
[SELECT AND CUSTOMIZE APPLICABLE THEORY:]
DESIGN DEFECT:
The [Product Name] contains a design defect that renders it unreasonably dangerous under both Minnesota's consumer expectation and risk-utility tests.
Consumer Expectation Test: The product was more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when using it in its intended manner.
Risk-Utility Test: The risk of harm outweighs the utility of the design because:
- The likelihood of harm was significant
- The severity of harm was substantial
- A feasible alternative design existed: [Describe alternative]
- The manufacturer could have eliminated the danger without significant cost
MANUFACTURING DEFECT:
The specific [Product Name] involved departed from its intended design due to a manufacturing defect:
[Detailed description of manufacturing defect]
FAILURE TO WARN:
The manufacturer failed to provide adequate warnings regarding known risks:
[Describe inadequate warnings and what adequate warnings should have stated]
V. THE INCIDENT
A. How the Injury Occurred
On [Date], at approximately [Time], our client was using the [Product Name] for its intended purpose when [describe what happened].
[Detailed narrative of the incident]
B. Foreseeable Use
Our client was using the product:
- For its intended purpose
- In accordance with provided instructions
- In a manner consistent with product marketing
- As a reasonable consumer would
C. Causation
The defect was the direct and proximate cause of our client's injuries. The injuries would not have occurred but for the defect.
VI. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Strict Liability
Under McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., 278 Minn. 322 (1967), your company is strictly liable because:
- The product was defective when it left your control
- The defect made the product unreasonably dangerous
- The defect caused our client's injuries
- Our client suffered damages
B. Negligence
Your company was negligent in:
- Designing a product with an unreasonable risk of harm
- Failing to adequately test the product
- Failing to provide adequate warnings
- Failing to implement adequate quality control
C. Breach of Warranty
The product breached:
- Express Warranty: [Describe any express warranties]
- Implied Warranty of Merchantability: Minn. Stat. Section 336.2-314
- Implied Warranty of Fitness: Minn. Stat. Section 336.2-315
D. Comparative Fault
Our client exercised all reasonable care and bears no percentage of fault for this incident. Under Minn. Stat. Section 604.01, your company cannot establish comparative fault.
VII. INJURIES AND DAMAGES
A. Physical Injuries
As a direct and proximate result of the defective product, our client sustained:
[List specific injuries with diagnoses]
B. Medical Treatment
Emergency Treatment:
- Date: [Date]
- Facility: [Hospital Name]
- Treatment: [Description]
Subsequent Treatment:
[Detail all treatment received]
C. Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider] | [Service] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]
D. Lost Wages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL | $[Total] |
E. Non-Economic Damages
[Describe pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life]
Minnesota does not cap non-economic damages in products liability cases.
F. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| Emotional Distress | $[Amount] |
| Loss of Enjoyment of Life | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL COMPENSATORY DAMAGES | $[Total] |
G. Punitive Damages
[If applicable:]
Your company's conduct demonstrates deliberate disregard for safety warranting punitive damages under Minn. Stat. Section 549.20:
[Describe conduct supporting punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence]
VIII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability and substantial damages, we hereby demand:
$[DEMAND AMOUNT]
This demand will remain open for forty-five (45) days from the date of this letter, expiring on [Expiration Date].
IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED
- Medical records and bills
- Photographs of the product and defect
- Photographs of injuries
- Employment and wage documentation
- Expert reports (if available)
- Product documentation and warnings
- [Other relevant documentation]
X. CONCLUSION
This case involves a defective product that caused serious injuries to our client. Liability is clear under Minnesota products liability law, and damages are substantial. We urge you to evaluate this claim seriously and respond with a fair settlement offer.
If this matter cannot be resolved, we are prepared to file suit in the District Court of [County], Minnesota, and pursue this matter through trial.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Minnesota Attorney Reg. No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: As noted above
cc: [Client Name]
File
MINNESOTA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
Dual Design Defect Test: Minnesota uses both consumer expectation and risk-utility tests. Choose the most favorable approach based on the facts.
Four-Year Statute of Limitations: Minnesota has a longer limitations period than most states.
Comparative Negligence: 50% bar rule - plaintiff cannot recover if 50% or more at fault.
Punitive Damages: Require clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for safety. Gross negligence alone is insufficient.
Joint and Several Liability: Modified system based on percentage of fault. Defendants over 50% at fault are jointly and severally liable.
Expert Testimony: Required to establish defect, causation, and alternative design in most cases.
No Statute of Repose: Minnesota does not have a general statute of repose for products liability.
Prejudgment Interest: Available under Minn. Stat. Section 549.09 from the date of the demand letter.