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. Section 9-3-33, 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]. We are prepared to file suit immediately if this matter cannot be resolved.

B. Georgia Premises Liability Duty Standards

Georgia law imposes specific duties on property owners based on the status of the visitor. Under O.C.G.A. Section 51-3-1, an owner or occupier of land who, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon the premises for any lawful purpose is liable for injuries caused by failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises safe.

Our client was a business invitee on your insured's premises, having been expressly or impliedly invited to enter for purposes connected with the business conducted on the premises. Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 405 S.E.2d 474 (1991).

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.

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

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: Established when:
- The hazard existed for a sufficient length of time that it would have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary care; OR
- The defendant's employees were in the immediate area of the hazard and could have discovered it.

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

D. Modified Comparative Negligence

Georgia follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 50% bar. Under O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33, a plaintiff may recover damages so long as the plaintiff's fault is not equal to or greater than the defendant's fault. If plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, recovery is completely barred.

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

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine in Georgia

While Georgia does not formally adopt the "mode of operation" doctrine as a substitute for proving notice, evidence of a defendant's mode of operation is relevant to establish constructive knowledge. Where a self-service business operation makes hazards foreseeable, shorter time periods may establish constructive notice.

See Quick-Pick Food Stores, Inc. v. Andrews, 220 Ga. App. 631, 469 S.E.2d 740 (1996).

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Georgia

Under Georgia law, property owners owe a duty to exercise ordinary care to protect invitees from snow and ice hazards. However, there is no automatic liability for natural accumulations of ice and snow. The plaintiff must show:

1. The property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazardous condition; and
2. The property owner failed to exercise ordinary care to make the premises safe.

Carnell v. Atlanta Consolidated Properties, L.P., 276 Ga. App. 705, 624 S.E.2d 259 (2005).

[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

Georgia courts recognize spoliation as a serious discovery abuse. Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC v. Campbell, 258 Ga. App. 767, 574 S.E.2d 923 (2002). Failure to preserve evidence may result in adverse inference instructions, sanctions, and potential independent causes of action.

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 highest duty of care under Georgia law: the duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises safe and to protect the invitee from unreasonable risks of harm. O.C.G.A. Section 51-3-1; Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 493 S.E.2d 403 (1997).

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 you fail to respond to this demand within the specified time, or should you fail to make a reasonable offer, we will file suit in the Superior Court of [County] County, Georgia without further notice.

VIII. BAD FAITH WARNING

[For policy limits or excess exposure cases:]

Our client's damages clearly exceed available policy limits. Your failure to tender limits exposes your insured to personal liability for any excess judgment. Georgia recognizes bad faith claims against insurers who fail to settle within policy limits when liability is clear and damages exceed limits. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brightman, 276 Ga. 683, 580 S.E.2d 527 (2003).

We strongly urge you to advise your insured of this exposure and to act in good faith.

IX. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS GOVERNMENT ENTITY]

If this claim involves a government entity, please note that Georgia law requires ante-litem notice pursuant to O.C.G.A. Section 36-33-5 (municipalities) or O.C.G.A. Section 36-11-1 (counties). Such notice [has been provided / is being provided concurrently].

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.

A jury in [County] County, Georgia would view this case favorably for our client. We urge you to give this matter prompt attention.

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: Under O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-33, if multiple defendants are at fault, damages are apportioned according to percentage of fault.

• Punitive Damages: Available under O.C.G.A. Section 51-12-5.1 for willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or entire want of care raising conscious indifference. Requires clear and convincing evidence.

• Ante-Litem Notice: Required for claims against municipalities (O.C.G.A. Section 36-33-5) and counties (O.C.G.A. Section 36-11-1). Different procedures apply to state agencies.

• Venue: Generally proper in county where defendant resides or where cause of action arose. O.C.G.A. Section 9-10-31.