DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF ALASKA

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

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Claims Representative Name / General Counsel]
[Property Owner / Management Company / Insurance Company Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PREMISES LIABILITY DEMAND - SLIP AND FALL
Our Client: [Client Full Name]
Date of Incident: [Date of Fall]
Location of Incident: [Full Address of Property]
Property Owner: [Property Owner Name]
Claim Number: [Claim Number, if assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] ("Claimant") for injuries sustained on [Date of Incident] at premises owned and/or controlled by your insured/client, located at [Property Address] in [City], Alaska. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.

I. ALASKA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Alaska Statutes Section 09.10.070, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims arising from premises liability is two (2) 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].

B. Pure Comparative Negligence

Alaska follows the doctrine of pure comparative negligence codified at Alaska Statutes Section 09.17.060. Under this doctrine, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but recovery is not barred regardless of the degree of fault.

Our client exercised reasonable care at all times and bears no responsibility for this incident.

C. Premises Liability Standard in Alaska

Alaska has abolished the traditional common law classifications of invitee, licensee, and trespasser for adult entrants. Instead, Alaska applies a unified standard of reasonable care under the circumstances. Webb v. City & Borough of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731 (Alaska 1977).

Under this standard, a property owner must exercise reasonable care to:
- Maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- Discover dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
- Remedy or warn of dangerous conditions

The owner's knowledge of the danger, the foreseeability of harm, and the burden of eliminating the danger are all factors in determining whether the owner acted reasonably. Toro Co. v. Krouse, Kern & Co., 827 P.2d 434 (Alaska 1992).

Note: The traditional classifications may still apply to trespassers in certain circumstances. Shea v. State, 75 P.3d 652 (Alaska 2003).

D. Notice Requirements

Alaska requires proof that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition:

Actual Notice: Direct knowledge of the hazardous condition.

Constructive Notice: The condition existed for a sufficient length of time that in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been discovered and remedied. Gonzales v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 882 P.2d 389 (Alaska 1994).

Evidence of constructive notice includes:
- Duration of the condition
- Appearance suggesting extended existence
- Inadequate inspection procedures
- Prior similar incidents

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine

Alaska has recognized the mode of operation doctrine in limited circumstances. Where a business operates in a manner that makes the occurrence of certain hazards foreseeable and continuous, the owner may be held to a heightened duty of inspection. Gonzales v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 882 P.2d 389 (Alaska 1994).

However, the mode of operation doctrine does not eliminate the notice requirement entirely; it is relevant to whether inspection procedures were reasonable.

F. Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine

The open and obvious nature of a danger is a factor in determining the property owner's duty but does not automatically eliminate the duty of care. Under Alaska's reasonable care standard, the analysis considers:
- Whether the danger was known or obvious to the plaintiff
- The likelihood of harm despite the obvious nature
- Whether precautions were feasible
Osborne v. Houstoun, 240 P.3d 1280 (Alaska 2010).

G. Snow and Ice Liability - CRITICAL IN ALASKA

Given Alaska's climate, snow and ice cases are particularly significant:

Natural Accumulation Rule: Alaska follows a modified natural accumulation rule. Property owners generally have a duty to exercise reasonable care regarding snow and ice, even natural accumulations, especially on commercial premises. City of Fairbanks v. Schaible, 375 P.2d 201 (Alaska 1962).

Factors Considered:
- The time elapsed since precipitation
- The foreseeability of foot traffic
- Industry custom and practice
- The burden of removal vs. risk of harm
- Prior notice of icy conditions

Commercial Premises: Commercial property owners have a heightened duty to maintain parking lots and walkways in reasonably safe condition, including removal or treatment of snow and ice. Webb v. City & Borough of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731 (Alaska 1977).

H. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Alaska recognizes res ipsa loquitur where:
1. The event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without negligence
2. The instrumentality was in the exclusive control of the defendant
3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the accident
Pioneer Constr., Inc. v. Bergeron, 170 P.3d 633 (Alaska 2007).

I. Landlord vs. Tenant Liability

In Alaska, landlords owe a duty of reasonable care to tenants and their guests:
- Landlords are liable for dangerous conditions in common areas
- Landlords may be liable for conditions in leased premises if they retained control or had a duty to repair
- The landlord's duty extends to known or reasonably discoverable conditions
Webb v. City & Borough of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731 (Alaska 1977).

J. Government Immunity - Alaska Tort Claims Act

Claims against the State of Alaska or its political subdivisions are governed by Alaska Statutes Section 09.50.250 et seq.:
- Sovereign immunity is waived for negligent acts
- Claims must be filed within two years
- Notice requirements apply
- Punitive damages are not available against the state

K. Damage Caps

Alaska imposes caps on non-economic damages under Alaska Statutes Section 09.17.010:
- Severe permanent physical impairment or disfigurement: The greater of $1,000,000 or the injured person's life expectancy in years multiplied by $25,000
- All other cases: The greater of $400,000 or the injured person's life expectancy in years multiplied by $8,500

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this incident and the subject premises, including but not limited to:

• All surveillance video footage from the date of incident
• Surveillance footage from 48 hours before and after the incident
• Incident/accident reports
• Witness statements
• Maintenance logs and repair records
• Inspection records and checklists
• Snow/ice removal records and contracts
• Weather records from the date of incident
• Prior complaints regarding the hazardous condition
• Prior incidents or falls at the same location
• Photographs of the incident location
• Written policies and procedures for maintenance
• Training records for employees
• All communications regarding the incident

Alaska recognizes spoliation as a basis for adverse inference instructions. Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God Church, 808 P.2d 1211 (Alaska 1991).

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type]. At all relevant times, [Property Owner Name] owned, operated, maintained, and/or controlled the subject premises.

B. The Hazardous Condition

On the date of the incident, a dangerous and hazardous condition existed on the premises, specifically:

[DESCRIBE THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION IN DETAIL]

[For snow/ice cases: Describe accumulation, duration since precipitation, temperature conditions, and failure to treat or remove]

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was lawfully present on the premises when [describe the fall in detail].

D. Notice

[Choose applicable theory:]

Actual Knowledge: Your insured had actual knowledge of the hazardous condition because [describe evidence].

Constructive Knowledge: The hazardous condition existed for a sufficient length of time that your insured should have discovered and remediated it. Evidence includes:
- [Evidence of duration]
- [Evidence of inspection failures]
- [Prior incidents]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

Under Alaska's unified standard of reasonable care, your insured had a duty to:
1. Maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. Conduct reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions
3. Warn of or remedy dangerous conditions

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached its duty of care by:
- Failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- Failing to conduct reasonable inspections
- Failing to remedy or warn of the dangerous condition
- [For snow/ice: Failing to clear, treat, or warn of icy conditions despite adequate time to do so]
- [Additional specific breaches]

C. Comparative Fault

Our client exercised reasonable care at all times:
- [Describe client's reasonable conduct]
- Our client had no reason to anticipate the dangerous condition
- The hazard was not open and obvious under the circumstances

D. Causation

The dangerous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's injuries.

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Summary of Injuries

As a direct and proximate result of the fall, our client sustained the following injuries:

[LIST INJURIES]

B. Medical Treatment

Emergency Treatment:
[Describe emergency care]

Follow-Up Treatment:
[Describe ongoing treatment]

Current Status and Prognosis:
[Describe current condition and prognosis]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]

B. Lost Wages

C. Pain and Suffering (Subject to Statutory Caps)

[Describe pain and suffering]

Note: Non-economic damages are subject to caps under Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.010.

D. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the liability of your insured, the severity of our client's injuries, and the substantial damages incurred, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring on [Expiration Date].

VIII. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Complete medical records and bills
• Photographs of the incident location
• Photographs of injuries
• Weather records (if applicable)
• Incident report (if obtained)
• Employment records and lost wage documentation
• [Additional documentation]

IX. CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes clear liability on the part of your insured. Your insured's failure to exercise reasonable care to maintain safe premises caused our client's serious injuries.

We urge prompt attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

ALASKA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Unified Duty Standard: Alaska has abolished the invitee/licensee distinction for adults. Apply reasonable care standard under the circumstances.

• Snow and Ice: Critical issue in Alaska. Commercial owners have a heightened duty. Document time since precipitation, temperature, and reasonable opportunity to remediate.

• Non-Economic Damage Caps: Alaska Stat. Section 09.17.010 caps non-economic damages. Factor this into settlement valuation.

• Pure Comparative Negligence: Recovery reduced but not barred by plaintiff's fault.

• Mode of Operation: Recognized but does not eliminate notice requirement.

• Venue: Alaska R. Civ. P. 3(c) - Superior Court in judicial district where claim arose or where defendant resides.

• Prejudgment Interest: Alaska Stat. Section 09.30.070 - 10.5% from date of filing or 180 days after injury, whichever is later.