DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

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

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 Washington, D.C. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.

I. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under D.C. Code Section 12-301(8), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims arising from premises liability is three (3) 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. Contributory Negligence - CRITICAL WARNING

The District of Columbia is one of only four U.S. jurisdictions that retains the doctrine of pure contributory negligence. Under D.C. law, if the plaintiff is found to have contributed to their injury in any degree, however slight, they are completely barred from recovery. District of Columbia v. Peters, 527 A.2d 1269 (D.C. 1987).

Our client was entirely free from fault. As detailed below, our client exercised reasonable care at all times and in no way contributed to this incident.

C. Premises Liability Classification of Entrants

The District of Columbia follows the traditional common law classifications:

1. Invitees (Highest Duty)
An invitee is a person who enters upon the premises at the invitation of the owner, express or implied, for business purposes or for purposes connected with business conducted on the premises. Sandoe v. Lefta Assocs., 559 A.2d 732 (D.C. 1989).

The landowner owes invitees a duty to:
- Exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- Inspect the premises to discover dangerous conditions
- Warn of or remedy dangerous conditions that the owner knows or should know of

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

3. Trespassers
Owed only a duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury.

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

D. Notice Requirements Under D.C. Law

The District of Columbia requires proof that the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition:

Actual Notice: The owner or employees knew of the hazardous condition. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Carter, 96 A.2d 481 (D.C. 1953).

Constructive Notice: The condition existed for such a length of time that in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have been discovered. Loney v. McPhillips, 268 U.S. 317 (1925).

Factors establishing constructive notice:
- Length of time condition existed
- Physical characteristics of the condition (dirty, tracked-through, dried)
- Visibility and location of the hazard
- Frequency of inspections
- Prior similar incidents

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine

The District of Columbia has recognized the mode of operation doctrine. Under Murphy v. I.G.A., Inc., 290 A.2d 568 (D.C. 1972) and subsequent cases:
- Where a store's self-service mode of operation creates a continuous risk of spillage
- The storekeeper may be charged with constructive notice of hazards arising from that operation
- The plaintiff must show the hazard arose from the mode of operation

This doctrine does not eliminate the notice requirement but may establish constructive notice.

F. Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine

Under D.C. law, a property owner generally has no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers. Alston v. Byers, 412 A.2d 371 (D.C. 1980).

However, the doctrine has exceptions:
- The owner may be liable if they should have anticipated harm despite the obvious nature
- The distraction exception applies
- The owner created a false sense of security

The open and obvious nature goes to contributory negligence analysis.

G. Natural Accumulation Rule

The District of Columbia follows a modified natural accumulation rule:

General Rule: Property owners have no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from private property. Torti v. Hoag, 13 D.C. App. 387 (1898).

Exceptions:
1. Unnatural Accumulations: Conditions created or aggravated by the property owner
2. Negligent Removal: If owner undertakes removal, must do so non-negligently
3. Abutting Public Sidewalks: D.C. Code Section 9-601 et seq. may impose duties regarding sidewalks

Commercial Properties: Commercial property owners may have heightened duties under specific circumstances.

H. Res Ipsa Loquitur

The District of Columbia 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
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. O'Neill, 633 A.2d 834 (D.C. 1993).

Note: Application of res ipsa may be complicated by D.C.'s contributory negligence rule.

I. Landlord vs. Tenant Liability

D.C. landlord liability principles and the D.C. Housing Code:
- Common Areas: Landlord owes duty for areas retained under control
- Leased Premises: Generally tenant assumes control, but landlord may be liable for:
- Latent defects known at time of lease
- Violations of D.C. Housing Code (negligence per se)
- Areas where landlord retained control
- Covenant to repair
- D.C. Code Section 42-3501.01 et seq.: Statutory duties for residential landlords

J. Government Immunity - Federal and D.C. Government

Claims Against the District of Columbia:
Governed by D.C. Code Section 12-309:
- Notice Requirement: Written notice within six (6) months of injury
- The notice must be served on the Mayor
- Failure to provide timely notice bars the claim

Claims Against the Federal Government:
Governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Section 2671 et seq.:
- Administrative claim must be filed within two (2) years
- Sovereign immunity waived for negligent acts of federal employees
- Various exceptions apply (discretionary function, etc.)

K. Damage Caps

No caps on compensatory damages against private defendants.

D.C. Government Claims: No specific damage cap, but punitive damages not available against the District.

L. Punitive Damages

Available for conduct showing "willful disregard" or "wanton negligence" - a higher standard than ordinary negligence. Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Breeden, 665 A.2d 929 (D.C. 1995). 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
• 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

D.C. courts recognize spoliation sanctions and adverse inference instructions. Holmes v. Amerex Rent-A-Car, 710 A.2d 846 (D.C. 1998).

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 - Actual or Constructive

[Choose applicable theory:]

Actual Knowledge: Your insured had actual knowledge of the hazardous condition because [describe evidence of actual knowledge].

Constructive Knowledge: The hazardous condition existed for a sufficient length of time that your insured, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered and remediated it. Evidence of constructive notice includes:
- [Evidence of duration]
- [Evidence of inspection failures]
- [Prior similar incidents]

Mode of Operation: [If applicable] Your insured's self-service mode of operation made such hazards foreseeable and continuous, establishing constructive notice.

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

As a business invitee, our client was owed the highest duty of care under D.C. law. Your insured had a duty to:
1. Exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. Inspect the premises to discover dangerous conditions
3. Warn of or remedy known or discoverable 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. Contributory Negligence - Inapplicable

We specifically address and reject any claim of contributory negligence:

Given the District of Columbia's strict contributory negligence rule, we emphasize:

• Our client was exercising reasonable care at all times
• Our client had no reason to anticipate the dangerous condition
• The hazard was not open and obvious
• Our client's attention was reasonably directed [elsewhere - describe]
• Our client had every right to expect the premises would be maintained in a safe condition
• Our client took no action that contributed to the fall

There is absolutely no evidence that our client contributed to this incident in any way.

D. Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Even if contributory negligence were established (which we deny), the last clear chance doctrine may apply. Under this doctrine, a plaintiff may recover if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury and failed to do so. District of Columbia v. Fowler, 497 A.2d 456 (D.C. 1985).

Your insured had the ability to discover and remedy the hazardous condition before our client's fall and failed to do so.

E. 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].

Given the District of Columbia's contributory negligence rule, your insured faces a binary outcome at trial: either total liability or no liability. The evidence overwhelmingly supports our client's complete freedom from fault, making this case extremely high-risk for your insured.

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. Our client was a business invitee who was entirely free from fault. Your insured's failure to maintain safe premises caused our client's serious injuries.

We urge prompt attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Contributory Negligence: D.C. is one of only four U.S. jurisdictions (with Alabama, Maryland, and North Carolina) that follows pure contributory negligence. Any fault by the plaintiff completely bars recovery.

• Last Clear Chance Doctrine: Can overcome contributory negligence defense if defendant had last opportunity to prevent injury.

• Mode of Operation Doctrine: Recognized - can establish constructive notice in self-service establishments.

• Three-Year SOL: Longer than most jurisdictions - D.C. Code Section 12-301(8).

• Government Claims: 6-month notice for D.C. government claims; 2-year admin claim for FTCA.

• Natural Accumulation Rule: Generally no duty to remove natural ice/snow from private property.

• No Damage Caps: No statutory caps on compensatory damages against private defendants.

• Venue: D.C. Superior Court is the court of general jurisdiction.

• Prejudgment Interest: D.C. Code Section 15-109 - Interest may be awarded at the legal rate.

• Federal Property: Many D.C. properties are federal - consider FTCA implications.