DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

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

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

I. CONNECTICUT-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-584, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims arising from negligence 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].

Note: The statute may be extended under the continuing course of conduct doctrine or fraudulent concealment in appropriate circumstances.

B. Modified Comparative Negligence (51% Bar Rule)

Connecticut follows modified comparative negligence under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-572h. Under this statute:
- A plaintiff may recover if their fault is not greater than the combined negligence of all defendants
- If plaintiff is 50% or less at fault, damages are reduced by the percentage of plaintiff's fault
- If plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, recovery is completely barred

Maher v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., 269 Conn. 154, 847 A.2d 978 (2004).

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

C. Premises Liability Classification of Entrants

Connecticut follows the traditional common law classifications with some modifications:

1. Invitees (Highest Duty)
An invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose connected with business dealings with the possessor. Morin v. Bell Court Condominium Ass'n, 223 Conn. 323, 612 A.2d 1197 (1992).

The landowner owes invitees a duty to:
- Keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- Inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions
- Take reasonable precautions to protect invitees from foreseeable dangers

2. Licensees
A licensee is one who enters with permission for their own purpose. The owner owes a duty to:
- Warn of known dangers
- Exercise reasonable care in active operations

3. Trespassers
Owed only a duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

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

D. Notice Requirements Under Connecticut Law

Connecticut requires proof that the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition:

Actual Notice: The owner or employees knew of the specific condition. Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 281 Conn. 768, 918 A.2d 249 (2007).

Constructive Notice: The condition existed for such a length of time that the defendant should have discovered it. Martin v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 70 Conn. App. 250, 796 A.2d 1277 (2002).

Factors establishing constructive notice include:
- Length of time condition existed
- Visibility of the condition
- Proximity to employees
- Frequency of inspection
- Nature of the business

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine

Connecticut has not adopted the mode of operation doctrine. The Connecticut Supreme Court in Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 281 Conn. 768, 918 A.2d 249 (2007) rejected the mode of operation rule, holding:
- Plaintiffs must prove actual or constructive notice
- The self-service nature of a business does not eliminate the notice requirement
- Mode of operation evidence may be relevant to whether inspections were reasonable

This is a critical distinction from many other states.

F. Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine

Connecticut recognizes that an owner generally has no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers. Sweeney v. Friends of Hammonasset, 140 Conn. App. 40, 58 A.3d 293 (2013).

However, this is not an absolute defense:
- The owner may still have a duty if harm is foreseeable despite the obvious nature
- Comparative negligence analysis applies
- The distraction doctrine may apply

G. Natural Accumulation Rule - IMPORTANT IN CONNECTICUT

Connecticut follows the natural accumulation rule with important exceptions:

General Rule: Property owners have no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from outdoor walkways. Kraus v. Newton, 211 Conn. 191, 558 A.2d 240 (1989).

Exceptions - Duty May Exist:
1. Unnatural Accumulations: Conditions created or aggravated by the property owner
2. Interior Areas: Different standard for ice/water brought into indoor areas
3. Ongoing Storm: No duty during an ongoing storm, but duty arises within reasonable time after storm ends
4. Landlord-Tenant: May be modified by lease terms
5. Business Practices: If owner undertakes snow removal, must do so non-negligently

Fiano v. Old Saybrook Fire Co. No. 1, Inc., 332 Conn. 93, 209 A.3d 629 (2019) - reaffirmed natural accumulation rule.

H. Res Ipsa Loquitur

Connecticut recognizes res ipsa loquitur under appropriate circumstances:
1. The occurrence must be one that would not ordinarily happen without negligence
2. The instrumentality must be in the defendant's exclusive control
3. The plaintiff must not have contributed to the occurrence
Giles v. City of New Haven, 228 Conn. 441, 636 A.2d 1335 (1994).

I. Landlord vs. Tenant Liability

Connecticut landlord liability principles:
- Common Areas: Landlord owes duty for areas retained under control. Gore v. People's Savings Bank, 235 Conn. 360, 665 A.2d 1341 (1995).
- Leased Premises: Generally tenant assumes control, but landlord liable for:
- Latent defects known at time of lease
- Violations of housing code (negligence per se)
- Areas where landlord retained control
- Covenant to repair
- Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 47a-7: Statutory duties for residential landlords

J. Government Immunity - Connecticut Tort Claims

Claims against municipalities are governed by Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-557n:

Municipal Liability: Municipalities are liable for negligent acts of employees, subject to governmental immunity for discretionary functions.

Highway Defect Liability: Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 13a-149 provides liability for defective highways/sidewalks with specific notice requirements.

Notice Requirement: Written notice within 90 days for highway/sidewalk defects. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 13a-149.

State Claims: Claims against the state require filing with Claims Commissioner. Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 4-141 et seq.

K. Damage Caps

No caps on compensatory damages in most premises liability cases against private defendants.

Punitive damages are generally not available for ordinary negligence; may be available for reckless or intentional conduct.

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 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

Connecticut recognizes spoliation sanctions and adverse inference instructions. Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769, 675 A.2d 829 (1996).

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: Address whether condition was natural or unnatural accumulation, indoor vs. outdoor, and time elapsed since storm]

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

Connecticut law requires proof of actual or constructive notice. We establish notice as follows:

[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 - appearance of condition, witness testimony]
- [Evidence of inadequate inspection procedures]
- [Proximity to employees]
- [Prior similar incidents]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

As a business invitee, our client was owed the highest duty of care under Connecticut law. Your insured had a duty to:
1. Keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. Inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions
3. Take reasonable precautions to protect invitees from foreseeable dangers

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 despite adequate time
- 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. Under Connecticut's 51% bar rule, our client's complete freedom from fault ensures full recovery of damages.

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
• 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 Connecticut premises liability law. Your insured had notice of the dangerous condition and failed to act. This failure caused our client's serious injuries.

We urge prompt attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

CONNECTICUT-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• No Mode of Operation Doctrine: Kelly v. Stop & Shop (2007) - Must prove actual or constructive notice. This is critical in Connecticut cases.

• 51% Bar Rule: Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-572h - Plaintiff barred if more than 50% at fault.

• Natural Accumulation Rule: Strong in Connecticut - Kraus v. Newton - Focus on exceptions (unnatural accumulation, indoor areas, negligent removal).

• Notice Critical: Without mode of operation doctrine, gathering evidence of notice is essential.

• Highway/Sidewalk Defects: 90-day written notice requirement under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 13a-149.

• No Damage Caps: Connecticut has no caps on compensatory damages.

• Offer of Judgment: Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-192a - Cost-shifting mechanism.

• Collateral Source Rule: Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 52-225a - Allows reduction for certain collateral sources.

• Venue: Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 51-345 - Judicial district where cause of action arose or where defendant resides.

• Prejudgment Interest: Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 37-3a - 10% per annum.