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 Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-542, 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

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

Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 51, 961 P.2d 449 (1998).

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

C. Premises Liability Classification of Entrants

Arizona follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts approach, which retains traditional classifications but has evolved the duties:

1. Invitees (Highest Duty)
An invitee is one who enters with the possessor's express or implied invitation for business purposes or as a member of the public for purposes for which the land is held open. Markowitz v. Ariz. Parks Bd., 146 Ariz. 352, 706 P.2d 364 (1985).

The landowner owes invitees a duty to:
- Maintain the premises in reasonably safe condition
- Inspect for and discover dangerous conditions
- Warn of or correct known or discoverable dangerous conditions

2. Licensees
A licensee enters with permission but for the visitor's own purposes. The owner must:
- Warn of known dangers not obvious to the licensee
- Exercise reasonable care in active operations

3. Trespassers
Owed only a duty not to willfully or wantonly injure. Exception: discovered and child trespassers.

Our client was a business invitee entitled to the highest duty of care.

D. Notice Requirements in Arizona

Arizona requires proof of actual or constructive notice for transitory conditions:

Actual Notice: The owner or employees knew of the dangerous condition. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Fultz, 109 Ariz. 558, 514 P.2d 434 (1973).

Constructive Notice: The condition existed for such a length of time that in the exercise of ordinary care, it should have been discovered. Evidence may include:
- Duration of the condition
- Appearance of the substance
- Prior incidents at the location
- Inspection frequency
Chiara v. Fry's Food Stores of Ariz., Inc., 152 Ariz. 398, 733 P.2d 283 (1987).

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine

Arizona recognizes the mode of operation doctrine. Under Chiara v. Fry's Food Stores of Ariz., Inc., 152 Ariz. 398, 733 P.2d 283 (1987), where:
- The owner's mode of operation creates a continuous risk of spillage or debris
- Such risks are reasonably foreseeable
- The owner may be deemed to have constructive notice of hazards arising from that operation

However, this doctrine creates an inference of notice, not strict liability. The defendant may rebut by showing reasonable inspection procedures were in place.

F. Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine

Arizona follows the distraction exception to the open and obvious rule. Under Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board, 146 Ariz. 352, 706 P.2d 364 (1985):
- An open and obvious condition may reduce or eliminate the owner's duty
- However, the owner may still be liable if:
- The plaintiff was distracted
- The danger was not as obvious as it appeared
- There was no reasonable alternative route
- The owner should have anticipated the harm despite the obvious nature

The open and obvious nature goes to comparative fault analysis, not automatic dismissal.

G. Natural Accumulation Rule (Limited Application in Arizona)

While Arizona's climate makes snow and ice cases less common:
- Property owners have a duty of reasonable care regarding any accumulated water, ice, or debris
- No strict "natural accumulation" defense
- Reasonable care standard applies to all conditions
Tribe v. Shell Oil Co., 133 Ariz. 517, 652 P.2d 1040 (1982).

H. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Arizona recognizes res ipsa loquitur under RAJI (Civil) Instruction 3 where:
1. The accident is of a type that ordinarily does not occur without negligence
2. The instrumentality was in the defendant's exclusive control
3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the accident
Rossell v. Volkswagen of Am., 147 Ariz. 160, 709 P.2d 517 (1985).

I. Landlord vs. Tenant Liability

Arizona law on landlord liability:
- Common Areas: Landlord retains duty for common areas under their control. Stephens v. Bashas', Inc., 186 Ariz. 427, 924 P.2d 117 (App. 1996).
- Leased Premises: Generally tenant assumes duty, but landlord may be liable if:
- Landlord retained control
- Landlord covenanted to repair
- Landlord had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition
- Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act: A.R.S. Section 33-1324 imposes duties on residential landlords.

J. Government Immunity - Arizona Tort Claims

Claims against government entities are governed by A.R.S. Section 12-820 et seq.:
- Sovereign immunity is waived for negligent acts within scope of employment
- Notice requirement: Claims against public entities must be filed within 180 days of accrual. A.R.S. Section 12-821.01.
- Absolute immunity for discretionary functions
- No punitive damages against public entities

K. Punitive Damages

Arizona allows punitive damages for conduct showing "evil mind" - the defendant knew conduct was wrong or was so outrageous that evil mind can be inferred. Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326, 723 P.2d 675 (1986). No statutory cap.

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

Arizona recognizes spoliation sanctions including adverse inference instructions. Souza v. Fred Carries Contracts, Inc., 191 Ariz. 247, 955 P.2d 3 (App. 1997).

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 applicable] Your insured's mode of operation made spills and debris foreseeable, creating constructive notice of the condition.

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

As a business invitee, our client was owed the highest duty of care under Arizona law. 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. Section 12-2505 allows recovery even if plaintiff is more than 50% at fault.

• Mode of Operation Doctrine: Recognized in Chiara - creates inference of notice for self-service operations.

• Government Claims: 180-day notice requirement under A.R.S. Section 12-821.01 - STRICT deadline.

• No Damage Caps: Arizona has no caps on compensatory damages in most personal injury cases.

• Joint and Several Liability: Abolished by A.R.S. Section 12-2506 - each defendant liable only for their percentage of fault.

• Venue: A.R.S. Section 12-401 - County where defendant resides or where cause of action arose.

• Prejudgment Interest: A.R.S. Section 44-1201 - 10% per annum from date complaint is served, if offer to settle was made and rejected.

• Punitive Damages: Available for "evil mind" conduct; no cap.