Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Arizona

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF ARIZONA

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

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

I. ARIZONA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under A.R.S. § 12-542, a personal-injury action generally must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues. Accrual, tolling, public-entity rules, and other claim-specific provisions can change the deadline; counsel should calculate and calendar the actual filing date rather than assume it is always the second anniversary of the fall.

B. Pure Comparative Negligence

Arizona follows the doctrine of pure comparative negligence codified at Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-2505. Under this statute:

• The plaintiff's fault reduces but does not bar recovery
• The plaintiff may recover even if more than 50% at fault
• Damages are reduced in proportion to plaintiff's percentage of fault
• There is no comparative-negligence right for a claimant who intentionally, wilfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury

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

C. Business-Invitee Duty

A business-invitee relationship creates a duty to make and keep the premises reasonably safe for customers. Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc., No. CV-24-0104-PR, ¶¶ 8-9 (Ariz. Mar. 12, 2025). The business is not an insurer of customer safety, and the fall alone does not establish negligence. To prove breach, the claimant generally must show that the owner created the unsafe condition, had actual notice of it, or should have discovered and remedied it before the fall. Id. ¶ 9.

Our client was a business invitee. If the claimant's entrant status is disputed, counsel must analyze the duty applicable to the actual relationship rather than use this invitee section unchanged.

D. Notice Requirements in Arizona

When the proprietor did not create a transitory condition, the evidence ordinarily must support actual notice or show that the proprietor should have discovered and remedied the condition before the fall. Evidence may include:

• Duration of the condition
• Appearance of the substance
• Prior incidents at the location
• Inspection frequency

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine

Arizona recognizes a limited mode-of-operation rule. It may dispense with proof of notice of the specific condition when the claimant proves that the business adopted a method of operation from which it could reasonably anticipate that unreasonably dangerous conditions would regularly arise, and that it failed to exercise reasonable care under those circumstances. Chiara v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc., 152 Ariz. 398, 400-01, 733 P.2d 283, 285-86 (1987). The rule does not impose strict liability and does not apply merely because customer interference is conceivable.

F. Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine

Under Perez, whether a condition was unreasonably dangerous or open and obvious does not eliminate the duty owed to a business invitee. Those facts concern breach and, where supported, comparative fault. Perez, ¶¶ 16-23. A court may still resolve breach as a matter of law on an appropriate record; obviousness is not an automatic defense or an automatic jury verdict.

G. Residential Landlord Duties

For covered residential tenancies, A.R.S. § 33-1324(A) requires the landlord to comply with materially health-and-safety-related building codes, make necessary repairs to keep the premises fit and habitable, and keep common areas clean and safe. Determine who owned, possessed, controlled, maintained, or contractually undertook responsibility for the precise location; do not assume liability solely from a party's title as landlord or tenant.

H. Public-Entity and Public-Employee Claims

Claims against government entities are governed by A.R.S. Section 12-820 et seq.:

• Notice of claim: A claim must be filed with the person authorized to accept service within 180 days after accrual and must state sufficient liability facts, a specific settlement amount, and facts supporting that amount. A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A).
• Suit deadline: An action against a public entity or public employee must be brought within one year after accrual. A.R.S. § 12-821.
• Immunity: A.R.S. § 12-820.01 provides absolute immunity for judicial or legislative functions and administrative functions involving the determination of fundamental governmental policy. Other statutory immunities may also apply; ordinary premises maintenance is not categorically immune merely because discretion was exercised.
• Punitive damages: A public entity and a public employee acting within the scope of employment are not liable for punitive damages. A.R.S. § 12-820.04.

I. Punitive Damages

Punitive damages are exceptional in a negligence action. The claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence an "evil mind": intent to cause harm, spite, or outrageous conduct creating a substantial risk of tremendous harm. Ordinary negligence, gross negligence, and recklessness alone are insufficient. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Carman, 253 Ariz. 499, 503-05 ¶¶ 20-26, 515 P.3d 685, 689-91 (2022). Plead or demand punitive damages only when the known facts support that standard.

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

This request is intended to identify evidence that may be relevant to the claim. The scope of any preservation duty and any remedy for lost evidence are fact- and procedure-dependent.

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.

Mode of Operation: [If supported] Your insured's chosen method of operation made unreasonably dangerous conditions regularly foreseeable, and reasonable preventive measures were not taken.

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

As a business invitee, our client was owed reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe. Your insured had a duty to:

1. Maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. Inspect for and discover dangerous conditions
3. Warn of or correct 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

Under Arizona's pure comparative negligence standard, even if any fault were attributed to our client (which we deny), your insured would remain liable for its proportionate share.

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.

We urge prompt attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
State Bar of Arizona No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

ARIZONA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Pure Comparative Negligence: A.R.S. § 12-2505 reduces damages in proportion to claimant fault, subject to its intentional/wilful/wanton-conduct exception.

• Mode of Operation Doctrine: Chiara supplies a limited alternative to specific-condition notice when the operation regularly produces unreasonably dangerous conditions and reasonable care was not used.

• Government Claims: A.R.S. § 12-821.01 generally requires a compliant notice within 180 days; A.R.S. § 12-821 generally requires suit within one year.

• State injury-damages limits: Arizona Constitution art. 2, § 31 generally bars state laws limiting damages for death or personal injury, subject to its felony-conduct exception.

• Several Liability: A.R.S. § 12-2506 generally makes liability several and allocates fault among parties and qualifying nonparties, subject to subsection (D)'s acting-in-concert, agency/servant, and FELA exceptions.

• Venue: A.R.S. § 12-401 starts with the defendant's county of residence and supplies enumerated exceptions, including subsection (10) for the county where a damages-producing trespass was committed. Analyze the parties and applicable exception.

• Interest: A.R.S. § 44-1201(B) sets non-medical-debt judgment interest at the lesser of 10% or prime plus 1%, unless another statute or written contract controls. Subsection (D) bars prejudgment interest on unliquidated, future, punitive, and exemplary damages.

• Punitive Damages: Swift requires clear-and-convincing proof of the heightened evil-mind standard; negligence or gross negligence alone is not enough.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Arizona Legislature, A.R.S. §§ 12-542, 12-2505, 12-2506, 12-401, 12-821, 12-821.01, 12-820.01, 12-820.04, 33-1324, and 44-1201 — https://www.azleg.gov/arstitle/
• Arizona Constitution, art. II, § 31 — https://www.azleg.gov/const/2/31.htm
• Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc., No. CV-24-0104-PR (Ariz. Mar. 12, 2025) — https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2025/CV240104PR.pdf
• Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Carman, No. CV-20-0119-PR (Ariz. Aug. 23, 2022) — https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2022/CV200119PR.pdf
• Chiara v. Fry's Food Stores of Arizona, Inc., 152 Ariz. 398, 733 P.2d 283 (1987) — https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1987/cv-86-0047-pr-2.html