DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PRODUCTS LIABILITY

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Mississippi ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Mississippi

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 Mississippi law.

I. MISSISSIPPI-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Mississippi Products Liability Act

Mississippi products liability claims are governed by the Mississippi Products Liability Act (MPLA), Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63. This statute provides the framework for products liability claims in Mississippi.

B. Products Liability Theories Recognized

Under Mississippi law, a plaintiff may recover based on the following theories:

1. Strict Liability (Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63(a))

The MPLA provides that a manufacturer or seller shall be liable if the product was defective at the time it left the control of the manufacturer or seller, and the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous.

2. Negligence (Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63(a)(i)(3))

A manufacturer or seller may be liable if the product is defective based on negligence in designing, testing, inspecting, manufacturing, or providing adequate warnings.

3. Breach of Warranty (Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63(a)(i)(4))

Liability may be based on breach of express or implied warranty.

C. Types of Defects

Under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63, defects include:

1. Design Defect - When the product is designed in a manner that renders it unreasonably dangerous
2. Manufacturing Defect - When the product departs from its intended design
3. Warning Defect - When the manufacturer fails to provide adequate warnings or instructions

D. Design Defect Standard - Risk-Utility Test

Mississippi applies a risk-utility balancing test for design defect claims. Under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63(f), the plaintiff must prove that:

1. The product was defective at the time it left the defendant's control
2. The defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous
3. The defect was a proximate cause of the damages

Courts consider factors including:
- The usefulness of the product
- The likelihood and severity of the danger
- The availability of a substitute product
- The ability to eliminate the danger without impairing usefulness
- The user's ability to avoid the danger
- The user's anticipated awareness of the danger
- The feasibility of spreading the cost

E. Statute of Limitations

Under Miss. Code Ann. Section 15-1-49, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including products liability, is three (3) years from the date of injury.

This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].

F. Statute of Repose

Under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63(5), Mississippi has a six (6) year statute of repose. No products liability claim may be brought more than six years after the date of delivery of the product to the first purchaser or lessee.

Exception: The statute of repose does not apply if the manufacturer has made express warranties that the product is safe for a longer period.

G. Comparative Negligence

Mississippi follows pure comparative fault under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-7-15. A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is never completely barred regardless of the plaintiff's degree of 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

H. Punitive Damages

Under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-65, punitive damages are available upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with:
- Actual malice
- Gross negligence evidencing willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for safety
- Actual fraud

Punitive Damages Cap: Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-65(3) caps punitive damages at:
- The greater of: (a) $20 million, or (b) 2% of the defendant's net worth, up to $20 million
- For defendants with net worth of $50 million or less: 2% of net worth
- For defendants with net worth of $50-500 million: 1% of net worth, up to $15 million
- For defendants with net worth over $500 million: $15-20 million

I. Seller Liability

Under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63(h), a seller (other than the manufacturer) is not liable unless:
- The seller exercised substantial control over design, testing, or manufacturing
- The seller altered or modified the product
- The seller failed to exercise reasonable care
- The seller made express warranties
- The manufacturer is insolvent or not subject to jurisdiction

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

Mississippi courts recognize spoliation sanctions. Richardson v. Sara Lee Corp., 847 So. 2d 821 (Miss. 2003). Destruction of evidence may result in adverse inferences and other sanctions.

III. THE DEFECTIVE PRODUCT

A. Product Identification

Statute of Repose Verification: The product was delivered to the first purchaser on [Date], which is within the six-year statute of repose period.

B. Chain of Distribution

The following entities are in the chain of distribution and may bear liability under Mississippi law:

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 Mississippi's risk-utility test. The risk of harm outweighs the product's utility because:

[Detailed description of design defect]

A feasible alternative design existed that would have prevented the injury:
[Describe alternative design]

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 Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63(a), your company is strictly liable because:

1. The product was defective at the time it left your control
2. The defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous
3. The defect was a proximate cause of our client's injuries
4. Our client suffered damages

B. Negligence

Under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63(a)(i)(3), 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

Under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63(a)(i)(4), the product breached:
- Express Warranty: [Describe any express warranties]
- Implied Warranty of Merchantability
- Implied Warranty of Fitness

D. Comparative Fault

Our client exercised all reasonable care and bears no percentage of fault for this incident. Under Mississippi's pure comparative fault system, even if your company attempts to allocate fault, our client is entitled to full recovery.

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

Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]

D. Lost Wages

E. Non-Economic Damages

[Describe pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life]

Mississippi does not cap non-economic compensatory damages.

F. Summary of Damages

G. Punitive Damages

[If applicable:]

Your company's conduct demonstrates actual malice or willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for safety warranting punitive damages under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-65:

[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 the Mississippi Products Liability Act, 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 Circuit Court of [County], Mississippi, and pursue this matter through trial.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Mississippi Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MISSISSIPPI-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

Mississippi Products Liability Act: The MPLA governs products liability claims. Familiarize yourself with Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63.

Six-Year Statute of Repose: Critical to verify product was delivered to first purchaser within six years. Document date of first sale.

Pure Comparative Fault: Mississippi allows recovery even if plaintiff is more at fault than defendant - only reduced by percentage of fault.

Punitive Damages Cap: Subject to statutory caps based on defendant's net worth. Require clear and convincing evidence.

Seller Liability Limitations: Non-manufacturer sellers have limited liability under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-63(h).

Expert Testimony: Required to establish defect and causation in most cases.

Risk-Utility Test: Primary test for design defects. Prepare evidence on all relevant factors.

Prejudgment Interest: Available under Miss. Code Ann. Section 75-17-7.