DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF COLORADO

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

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

I. COLORADO-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Colorado Revised Statutes Section 13-80-102, 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. Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Bar Rule)

Colorado follows modified comparative negligence under C.R.S. Section 13-21-111. Under this statute:
- A plaintiff may recover if their fault is not as great as the combined fault of all defendants
- If plaintiff is 49% or less at fault, damages are reduced by the percentage of plaintiff's fault
- If plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, recovery is completely barred

Feinberg v. Automobile Banking Corp., 353 F. Supp. 508 (D. Colo. 1973).

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

C. Colorado Premises Liability Act (CPLA)

Colorado's premises liability law is governed by the Colorado Premises Liability Act, C.R.S. Section 13-21-115. This statute codifies the classifications of entrants and duties owed:

1. Invitees - C.R.S. Section 13-21-115(3)(c)(I) (Highest Duty)

An invitee is a person who enters or remains on the land of another to transact business or for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public.

The landowner's duty: "To exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew or should have known."

2. Licensees - C.R.S. Section 13-21-115(3)(c)(II)

A licensee is one who enters with permission but for the visitor's own purpose.

The landowner's duty: "To exercise reasonable care to protect the licensee from dangers of which the landowner actually knew."

3. Trespassers - C.R.S. Section 13-21-115(3)(c)(III)

A trespasser enters without permission.

The landowner's duty: "Not to injure a trespasser willfully or deliberately."

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

D. Notice Requirements Under CPLA

The Colorado Premises Liability Act explicitly addresses the notice standard:

For Invitees (C.R.S. Section 13-21-115(3)(c)(I)):
- Actual knowledge: Landowner knew of the dangerous condition
- Constructive knowledge ("should have known"): The condition existed for such time and under such circumstances that the landowner should have discovered it through reasonable inspection

Larrieu v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 303 P.3d 558 (Colo. 2013) - Colorado Supreme Court confirmed that the CPLA requires proof of actual or constructive knowledge.

Evidence of Constructive Notice:
- Duration of the condition
- Appearance suggesting extended existence
- Inspection procedures and frequency
- Prior similar incidents
- Nature of the business operation

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine

Colorado has not adopted the mode of operation doctrine as a substitute for the notice requirement. Under Larrieu v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 303 P.3d 558 (Colo. 2013):
- The CPLA requires proof of actual or constructive notice
- Mode of operation evidence may be relevant to whether inspection procedures were reasonable
- However, it does not create a presumption of notice

F. Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine

Under Colorado law, the open and obvious nature of a condition is relevant to comparative fault analysis. Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004).

The CPLA does not make open and obvious conditions an automatic defense, but:
- The plaintiff's knowledge of the danger is relevant to comparative fault
- The defendant may argue the plaintiff assumed the risk

G. Natural Accumulation Rule - IMPORTANT FOR COLORADO

Colorado follows a modified natural accumulation rule. Under Cain v. Hill, 161 Colo. 287, 421 P.2d 474 (1966):
- Property owners generally have no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow
- However, liability may exist where:
- The owner's conduct created an unnatural accumulation
- The owner created conditions that aggravated natural conditions
- Commercial property owners may have heightened duties in certain circumstances

Lombard v. Colorado Outdoor Education Center, Inc., 187 P.3d 565 (Colo. 2008) - Affirmed natural accumulation rule.

Exceptions:
- Landlord covenant to clear ice/snow
- Commercial premises with specific duties
- Unnatural accumulations caused by drainage, design, etc.

H. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Colorado recognizes res ipsa loquitur where:
1. The accident is of a kind 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
Weiss v. Axler, 137 Colo. 544, 328 P.2d 88 (1958).

I. Landlord vs. Tenant Liability

Colorado landlord liability principles:
- Common Areas: Landlord owes duty under CPLA for areas retained under control
- Leased Premises: Generally tenant assumes control, but landlord may be liable for:
- Conditions existing at time of lease that landlord knew or should have known of
- Areas where landlord retained control
- Breach of covenant to repair
- Warranty of Habitability: C.R.S. Section 38-12-503 imposes duties on residential landlords

J. Government Immunity - Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA)

Claims against government entities are governed by C.R.S. Section 24-10-101 et seq.:

Immunity Waived for Dangerous Conditions:
C.R.S. Section 24-10-106(1)(d) - Immunity waived for "a dangerous condition of any public building" and C.R.S. Section 24-10-106(1)(e) for "a dangerous condition of a public highway, road, or street."

Notice Requirement: Written notice must be filed within 182 days of discovery of injury. C.R.S. Section 24-10-109.

Damage Caps (CGIA):
- $424,000 per person (adjusted periodically)
- $1,195,000 per occurrence
(Current caps as of 2024 - verify current amounts)

K. Damage Caps - Private Defendants

Non-Economic Damages: C.R.S. Section 13-21-102.5 caps non-economic damages at $729,790 (adjusted periodically for inflation - verify current cap).

The cap may be exceeded upon clear and convincing evidence of exceptional circumstances.

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 (if applicable)
• Weather records from the date of incident
• 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

Colorado recognizes spoliation sanctions. Aloi v. Union Pac. R.R. Corp., 129 P.3d 999 (Colo. 2006).

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 whether the condition was natural or unnatural accumulation, duration since precipitation, and any aggravating factors created by the property owner]

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 ("Should Have Known"): Under C.R.S. Section 13-21-115(3)(c)(I), your insured should have known of the hazardous condition because:
- [Evidence of duration]
- [Evidence of inadequate inspection procedures]
- [Prior similar incidents]
- [Foreseeability based on business operations]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care Under CPLA

As a business invitee under C.R.S. Section 13-21-115(3)(c)(I), our client was owed the highest duty of care. Your insured had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect our client against dangers of which it actually knew or should have known.

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 to discover the hazardous condition
- Failing to remedy or warn of the dangerous condition
- [For snow/ice: Creating unnatural accumulation or aggravating natural conditions]
- [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. Under Colorado's 50% bar rule, even a finding of fault up to 49% would allow recovery, but we maintain our client is entirely without fault.

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 Cap)

[Describe pain and suffering]

Note: Non-economic damages are subject to the cap under C.R.S. Section 13-21-102.5 (currently $729,790 - verify current cap).

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
• 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 under the Colorado Premises Liability Act. Your insured's failure to exercise reasonable care caused our client's serious injuries.

We urge prompt attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Colorado Attorney Registration No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

COLORADO-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Colorado Premises Liability Act: C.R.S. Section 13-21-115 governs - must analyze under statutory framework.

• 50% Bar Rule: Plaintiff barred if 50% or more at fault. Critical to establish client's freedom from fault.

• No Mode of Operation Doctrine: Larrieu case - must prove actual or constructive notice.

• Natural Accumulation Rule: Generally no duty to remove natural ice/snow. Focus on unnatural accumulations or aggravating factors.

• Non-Economic Damage Cap: Currently $729,790 - verify current cap and consider exception for exceptional circumstances.

• Government Claims: 182-day notice requirement under CGIA - STRICT deadline. Verify current damage caps.

• Certificate of Review: May be required for certain claims. C.R.S. Section 13-20-602.

• Venue: C.R.C.P. 98 - County where claim arose or where defendant resides.

• Prejudgment Interest: C.R.S. Section 5-12-102 - 8% per annum (or higher contract rate).