Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Arkansas

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF ARKANSAS

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

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], Arkansas. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.

I. ARKANSAS-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Arkansas Code Annotated Section 16-56-105 generally requires this negligence action to be filed within three (3) years after the cause of action accrues. Do not calculate the deadline from this template alone; accrual, tolling, the claimant's status, and special defendants must be reviewed. Counsel should calendar the earliest potentially applicable deadline.

B. Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Bar Rule)

Arkansas Code Annotated Section 16-64-122 compares the claimant's fault with the fault chargeable to the party or parties from whom recovery is sought. The claimant may recover only when the claimant's fault is of a lesser degree; damages are then reduced proportionally. Equal or greater fault bars recovery. In a two-sided allocation, this means the claimant must be below 50% fault, not at or below 50%.

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

C. Premises Liability Classification of Entrants

This form assumes the supported conclusion that our client was a business invitee. A property owner owes an invitee ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Jackson v. Mississippi County Hospital System, 2024 Ark. App. 321, at 7-8. A licensee or trespasser claim requires a different duty analysis and counsel's revision.

D. Notice Requirements in Arkansas

For a foreign object or substance, the claimant must prove either that its presence resulted from the defendant's failure to use ordinary care or that the defendant knew of it, or reasonably should have known of it because it remained for a sufficient time, and failed to use ordinary care to remove it. Arkansas Model Jury Instruction-Civil 1106 (Nov. 2025 update); Jackson, 2024 Ark. App. 321, at 8.

Factors establishing constructive notice:

• Length of time the condition existed
• Physical characteristics suggesting extended duration (dirty, tracked-through, dried)
• Frequency and adequacy of inspections
• Prior similar incidents

E. Recurring Conditions

Arkansas uses a recurring-condition analysis, not the broad “mode of operation” formulation formerly stated here. If the slippery condition is recurring rather than isolated, the question is whether the business used ordinary care to keep the premises free from dangerous conditions likely to injure invitees. Jackson, 2024 Ark. App. 321, at 8. Plead the recurrence with concrete evidence such as repeated leaks, prior reports, cleanup practices, or recurring operational conditions.

F. Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine

The known-or-obvious inquiry asks whether the invitee knew the condition and appreciated its danger, or whether both the condition and risk would be recognized by a reasonable person in the visitor's position. Jackson, 2024 Ark. App. 321, at 8-9. Do not use generic distraction, alternative-route, or false-security exceptions without authority tied to the facts.

G. Landlord and Government Defendants

For an injury caused by a defect or disrepair on leased premises, Ark. Code Ann. Section 18-16-110 generally requires proof that the landlord agreed, for consideration, or assumed by conduct a duty to maintain or repair and then failed to perform that duty reasonably.

State claims ordinarily proceed through the Arkansas State Claims Commission, and Section 19-10-209 uses the limitations period allowed for the same type of claim; it does not impose the former blanket 180-day notice rule. Political subdivisions listed in Section 21-9-301 are immune from damages suits except to the extent of liability-insurance coverage. Identify the exact public entity, insurance, forum, and deadline before sending the demand.

H. Damage Caps and Punitive Standard

Punitive Damages — No Statutory Cap: Arkansas's punitive-damages cap, Ark. Code Ann. Section 16-55-208, was held unconstitutional and void in Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer, 2011 Ark. 518, 385 S.W.3d 822 (under Ark. Const. art. 5, Section 32). There is no enforceable statutory ceiling; Bayer explains that an award remains subject to Arkansas common-law and federal due-process excessiveness review.

Punitive damages still require compensatory liability plus one of Section 16-55-206's aggravating factors, proved by clear and convincing evidence under Section 16-55-207. Ordinary premises negligence alone does not support punitive damages.

Res ipsa loquitur is not a substitute for the required slip-and-fall proof. AMI Civil 1106 expressly states that res ipsa loquitur does not apply to slip-and-fall cases.

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
• Prior complaints regarding hazardous conditions
• 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

Arkansas does not recognize intentional first-party spoliation as an independent tort. Intentional destruction may support a negative inference, and discovery sanctions may be available in litigation. Goff v. Harold Ives Trucking Co., 342 Ark. 143, 146-50, 27 S.W.3d 387, 389-92 (2000). Please suspend routine destruction for evidence reasonably related to this claim.

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]

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was lawfully present on the premises as a business invitee 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]

Recurring Condition: [If supported] This was not an isolated spill. The condition recurred because [describe repeated leak, recurring operational condition, prior reports, or cleanup history].

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

As a business invitee, our client was owed ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Your insured had a duty to:

1. Exercise ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. Make 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 discover the hazardous condition
• Failing to warn of or remedy the dangerous condition
• [Additional specific breaches]

C. Comparative Fault Analysis

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

Our client bears no fault whatsoever for this incident. Section 16-64-122 permits recovery only if the claimant's fault is less than the fault chargeable to the party or parties from whom recovery is sought; equal or greater fault bars recovery.

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

[Describe pain and suffering]

D. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear 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
• 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 maintain safe premises and conduct reasonable inspections caused our client's serious injuries. Our client was entirely without fault.

We urge prompt attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

ARKANSAS-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Comparative Fault: Under Ark. Code Ann. Section 16-64-122, the claimant must be less at fault than the party or parties from whom recovery is sought. In a two-sided allocation, 50% claimant fault is barred.

• Three-Year SOL: Longer than most states (2 years typical), but do not delay.

• Recurring Condition: Use the Arkansas recurring-condition analysis only when supported by evidence; do not label it a general mode-of-operation doctrine.

• Open and Obvious: Address both knowledge/appreciation and the objective visibility of the condition and risk under Jackson.

• Government Claims: Claims Commission procedure for State claims and Section 21-9-301 immunity for listed political subdivisions require defendant-specific analysis; there is no general 180-day Claims Commission notice rule.

• Punitive Damages: Section 16-55-208's cap is unconstitutional under Bayer. Sections 16-55-206 and -207 still supply the substantive standard and clear-and-convincing burden.

• Venue: Subject to statutory exceptions, Section 16-60-101 permits venue where a substantial part of the event occurred, where the individual defendant resided (or an entity had its Arkansas principal office) at the relevant time, or where the plaintiff resided (or an entity had its Arkansas principal office) at that time.

• Judgment Interest: Section 16-65-114 is not a fixed 10% rule. In a noncontract action, the statutory rate is the Federal Reserve primary credit rate in effect when judgment is entered plus 2%, subject to Amendment 89's maximum; prejudgment interest is included only when appropriate under the facts.

VERIFICATION SOURCES

• Arkansas Bureau of Legislative Research public Code portal and Code Sections Amended index (accessed July 12, 2026).
• Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil 1106, November 2025 update.
• Jackson v. Mississippi County Hospital System, 2024 Ark. App. 321.
• Bayer CropScience LP v. Schafer, 2011 Ark. 518, 385 S.W.3d 822.
• Goff v. Harold Ives Trucking Co., 342 Ark. 143, 27 S.W.3d 387 (2000).