Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Georgia

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF GEORGIA

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

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 [County] County, Georgia. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement and provides a comprehensive analysis of liability under Georgia law, our client's injuries, and damages.

I. GEORGIA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33, an action for injuries to the person generally must be brought within two years after the right of action accrues, subject to other statutory rules that may alter, toll, or shorten the time. The incident occurred on [Date]. Counsel must independently determine the filing deadline: [Expiration Date].

B. Georgia Premises Liability Duty Standards

Georgia law imposes duties based in part on the visitor's status. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1, an owner or occupier who expressly or impliedly invites another onto the premises for a lawful purpose is liable for injuries caused by a failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.

On the facts stated below, our client was a business invitee, expressly or impliedly invited to enter for a purpose connected with the business conducted on the premises.

As to invitees, your insured owed a duty to:

1. Keep the premises safe;
2. Inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions; and
3. Take reasonable precautions to protect invitees from foreseeable dangers.

The foundation of liability is the owner or occupier's superior knowledge of the hazard. Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 736, 493 S.E.2d 403 (1997); Cham v. ECI Management Corp., 311 Ga. 170, 179, 857 S.E.2d 557 (2021).

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Georgia Law

Under Georgia law, to recover for injuries sustained in a slip and fall, a plaintiff must show:

1. The defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard; and
2. The plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite exercising ordinary care for personal safety.

Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 493 S.E.2d 403 (1997).

Actual Knowledge: Established when the defendant or its employees knew of the hazard prior to the incident.

Constructive Knowledge: May be shown when:

• An employee was in the immediate area and could have easily seen and removed the hazard; or
• The hazard remained long enough that a reasonable inspection would have discovered it.

Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620, 272 S.E.2d 327 (1980).

D. Modified Comparative Negligence

Georgia follows modified comparative fault. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(a) and (g), damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff's fault, and the plaintiff receives no damages if 50% or more responsible for the claimed injury. Subsections (b)-(f) govern allocation among liable persons and designated nonparties; the current statute generally makes an apportioned award several rather than joint liability.

Our client exercised ordinary care and was not at fault for this incident. Any comparative negligence defense is unsupported by the facts.

E. Inspection and Recurring-Hazard Evidence

The inspection schedule, employee proximity, recurring complaints, prior incidents, customer traffic, and the nature, location, and apparent duration of the condition may bear on actual or constructive knowledge. Do not assume that a self-service operation dispenses with proof of knowledge.

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Georgia

Snow- and ice-related claims remain fact-specific applications of § 51-3-1 and the superior-knowledge framework. Relevant evidence may include when precipitation began and ended, whether ice was naturally occurring or was created or aggravated by site conditions, inspections and treatment, employee observations, warnings, and the parties' respective knowledge.

[If applicable:] The ice/snow condition in this case was known to your insured and/or existed for a sufficient time that it should have been discovered and remediated.

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 (interior and exterior cameras)
• Surveillance footage from 48 hours before and after the incident
• Incident/accident reports prepared by employees or management
• Witness statements taken at the time of incident
• Maintenance logs and repair records for the area of the fall
• Inspection records and checklists for the date of incident and prior 12 months
• Cleaning schedules and logs
• Weather records and reports from the date of incident
• Prior complaints regarding the hazardous condition
• Prior incidents or falls at the same or similar location
• Work orders and maintenance requests for the area
• Photographs of the incident location
• Written policies and procedures for maintenance, inspection, and safety
• Training records for employees responsible for premises safety
• All communications regarding the incident
• Insurance policies applicable to this claim

Under Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386, 396-400, 774 S.E.2d 596 (2015), a duty to preserve relevant evidence may arise when litigation is reasonably foreseeable to the party controlling it; actual notice from the claimant is not the only possible trigger. The court has broad discretion over fact-specific spoliation remedies. This request does not itself establish that a duty has arisen or prescribe a sanction.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], [County] County, Georgia, which is [describe property type - e.g., "a retail shopping center," "a grocery store," "a restaurant," "an apartment complex," "an office building," "a hotel," etc.]. At all relevant times, [Property Owner Name] owned, operated, possessed, maintained, and/or controlled the subject premises.

[If property manager involved:]
[Management Company Name] was responsible for the day-to-day management, maintenance, inspection, and safety of the 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 - e.g., liquid on the floor, uneven surface, debris, ice accumulation, etc.]

[Describe condition characteristics that establish notice - e.g., dirty appearance, tracked footprints, size of spill, duration based on witness testimony, etc.]

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe what client was doing] when [he/she] encountered the hazardous condition described above. [Detailed narrative of the fall, including what client was doing, how the fall occurred, what body parts impacted the ground, etc.]

Our client did not observe the hazardous condition prior to the fall because [explain why - e.g., the substance was clear, lighting was inadequate, attention was directed elsewhere as appropriate for the circumstances, etc.].

D. Your Insured's Knowledge

[Select and customize applicable theory:]

Actual Knowledge: Your insured had actual knowledge of the hazardous condition based on:

• [Prior complaints about the condition]
• [Employee awareness of the condition]
• [The condition was created by defendant's employees]
• [Other evidence]

Constructive Knowledge: Your insured had constructive knowledge because:

• The hazardous condition existed for a sufficient length of time such that it should have been discovered through the exercise of ordinary care
• [Describe evidence of duration - appearance, witness testimony, etc.]
• [Describe inadequate inspection procedures]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

As established above, your insured owed our client, a business invitee, the statutory duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe. O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1.

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached this duty by:

1. Failing to discover the hazardous condition through reasonable inspection;
2. Failing to remediate the hazardous condition;
3. Failing to warn of the hazardous condition;
4. Failing to implement adequate inspection and maintenance procedures;
5. [Additional breaches specific to the case]

C. Causation

The hazardous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries. But for your insured's negligence in allowing this dangerous condition to exist, our client would not have fallen and would not have sustained the injuries detailed herein.

D. Comparative Fault - Rebutted

Our client exercised ordinary care for [his/her] own safety. Under Robinson v. Kroger Co., the question of whether an invitee exercised ordinary care is generally a jury question unless the evidence demands a finding that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care.

Here, our client:

• Had a right to assume the premises were reasonably safe;
• Was not required to continuously inspect the floor for hazards;
• Directed [his/her] attention appropriately for the circumstances;
• Could not have observed the hazard through the exercise of ordinary care because [explain].

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Summary of Injuries

As a direct and proximate result of the fall, our client sustained the following injuries:

Primary Diagnoses:

• [Injury 1]
• [Injury 2]
• [Injury 3]

B. Treatment Summary

Emergency Treatment - [Date]:

• Provider: [Hospital/Facility Name]
• Treatment: [Description]
• Findings: [Diagnosis, imaging results]

Follow-Up Care:

• Provider: [Name]
• Dates: [Range]
• Treatment: [Description]

Specialist Care:

• Provider: [Name, Specialty]
• Dates: [Range]
• Treatment: [Description]

Physical Therapy/Rehabilitation:

• Provider: [Name]
• Duration: [Sessions/weeks]
• Treatment: [Description]

Surgical Intervention (if applicable):

• Procedure: [Description]
• Date: [Date]
• Surgeon: [Name, Facility]

C. Current Status and Prognosis

[Describe current condition, maximum medical improvement status, permanent impairment, ongoing symptoms, and future treatment needs]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Past Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

Based on our client's treating physicians' opinions, future medical care will include:

C. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity

D. Pain and Suffering / Non-Economic Damages

Our client has experienced significant pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life:

• Physical pain from injuries sustained
• Emotional distress, anxiety, and depression
• Loss of enjoyment of life and recreational activities
• Interference with family relationships and activities
• Permanent impairment and scarring
• [Other non-economic damages specific to case]

E. 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 the sum of:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

[OR - Policy Limits Demand:]

TENDER OF THE FULL POLICY LIMITS OF $[AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, through and including [Expiration Date].

Should this matter not resolve, our client may pursue relief in a court of competent jurisdiction, subject to all applicable filing, service, and venue requirements.

VIII. POLICY-LIMITS / EXCESS-EXPOSURE NOTE

[For policy limits or excess exposure cases:]

Counsel should use a policy-limits or excess-exposure demand only after reviewing the complete policy, all potentially liable parties and insurers, settlement conditions, authority to release claims, and current Georgia insurance-settlement law. Do not treat this optional section as a substitute for a separately researched time-limited demand.

IX. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS GOVERNMENT ENTITY]

Government claims require defendant-specific analysis. O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5 generally requires a written municipal claim within six months, including the time, place, extent, alleged negligence, and specific monetary amount, served as the statute directs. Section 36-11-1 generally requires claims against counties to be presented within 12 months after accrual or payment becomes due. For a tort claim against the State under the Georgia Tort Claims Act, § 50-21-26 generally requires written notice within 12 months after the loss was or should have been discovered, service on the Department of Administrative Services and the implicated state entity, specified contents, and observance of the statutory waiting period. Immunity, waiver, notice, service, and filing rules must all be checked independently.

X. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

The following documents are enclosed in support of this demand:

• Complete medical records from all treating providers
• Itemized medical bills
• Photographs of the incident location
• Photographs of our client's injuries
• Incident report (if obtained)
• Employment records and wage verification
• [Other supporting documentation]
• HIPAA authorizations

XI. CONCLUSION

The evidence in this case establishes clear and indisputable liability on the part of your insured. Our client was a business invitee who was injured due to your insured's failure to exercise ordinary care in maintaining the premises. The hazardous condition was either actually known or should have been discovered through reasonable inspection. Our client exercised ordinary care and could not have avoided the hazard.

We urge prompt review of the evidence and a timely response.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

GEORGIA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Robinson v. Kroger Standard: The 1997 Robinson decision established the analytical framework for Georgia premises liability cases, clarifying the knowledge requirements for both defendants and plaintiffs.

• Equal Knowledge Rule: If the plaintiff has equal or superior knowledge of the hazard compared to the defendant, recovery may be barred. Robinson, 268 Ga. at 748.

• Apportionment: O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 requires plaintiff-fault reduction, bars recovery at 50% or more plaintiff responsibility, and governs allocation among liable persons and qualifying nonparties.

• Punitive Damages: O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1 requires clear and convincing proof of the listed aggravating conduct. In an ordinary non-product premises case outside subsection (f), subsection (g) generally caps the award at $250,000.

• Ante-Litem Notice: Municipal, county, and State claims have different statutes, deadlines, recipients, content, waiting periods, and immunity rules. See §§ 36-33-5, 36-11-1, and 50-21-26.

• Venue: Determine venue from the Georgia Constitution and statutes applicable to the defendant type and party alignment. O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31 addresses certain codefendants in different counties; it is not a general rule that every tort may be filed where the cause arose.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33 — Personal-injury limitation
• O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1 — Invitee duty
• O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 — Comparative fault and apportionment
• O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1 — Punitive damages
• O.C.G.A. § 36-33-5 — Municipal notice
• O.C.G.A. § 36-11-1 — County claim presentation
• O.C.G.A. § 50-21-26 — State tort-claim notice
• Cham v. ECI Management Corp., 311 Ga. 170 (2021)
• Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997)
• Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620 (1980)
• Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386 (2015)
• Georgia General Assembly — 2025 Act 9 / SB 68