Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Hawaii

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF HAWAII

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

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

I. HAWAII-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Hawaii Revised Statutes § 657-7 generally requires an action for compensation for injury to a person or property to be instituted within two years after the cause of action accrued. Accrual, tolling, governmental-defendant rules, and other claim-specific provisions can alter the deadline. Counsel must independently determine the filing deadline: [Expiration Date].

B. Hawaii Premises Liability Duty Standards

A possessor of land who knows or should know that a condition on the land poses an unreasonable risk of harm to persons using the land owes those persons a duty to take reasonable steps to eliminate the unreasonable risk or warn them against it. Whether the possessor acted reasonably under the circumstances is ordinarily for the trier of fact. Buchanan v. Mutual Unlimited LLC, No. CAAP-18-0000791, at 5-7 (Haw. App. Sept. 21, 2022) (citing Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 76 Hawai‘i 494, 503, 880 P.2d 169, 178 (1994), and Corbett v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Wailua Bayview Apartments, 70 Haw. 415, 772 P.2d 693 (1989)).

Our client was lawfully using the premises for [describe purpose]. The facts supporting duty, unreasonable risk, breach, and notice must be stated specifically.

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Hawaii Law

The governing inquiry is whether the possessor knew or should have known of an unreasonable risk posed by the condition and failed to take reasonable steps to eliminate it or give an adequate warning. Relevant evidence may include who created the condition, employee observations, prior complaints or incidents, inspection and maintenance practices, the condition's apparent duration, lighting, warnings, and whether the risk was recurring. Do not assume any single notice route without factual support.

D. Modified Comparative Negligence

Hawaii follows modified comparative negligence. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 663-31, claimant negligence does not bar recovery if it is not greater than the aggregate negligence of the persons against whom recovery is sought, but allowed damages are reduced in proportion to claimant negligence.

Our client exercised reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident. The entirety of fault rests with your insured.

E. Operational and Inspection Evidence

The nature of the operation may supply relevant facts about foreseeability, inspection frequency, employee proximity, recurring hazards, and reasonable precautions. It does not create a categorical heightened-duty or no-notice rule. Here, [identify the operation-specific evidence and explain why reasonable precautions were inadequate].

F. Open and Obvious Doctrine

Hawaii no longer recognizes a known-or-obvious-danger defense as a categorical bar. The condition's obviousness and the claimant's conduct may instead bear on breach, causation, and comparative negligence. Buchanan, No. CAAP-18-0000791, at 8-9; HRS § 663-31 case notes.

[If applicable:] The hazardous condition in this case was not open and obvious to our client because [explain].

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

Please suspend routine destruction of potentially relevant material and preserve it in its original form. The existence and scope of any preservation duty and any remedy for loss of evidence are fact- and procedure-dependent; this request does not itself establish an entitlement to a particular sanction or inference.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type - e.g., "a retail shopping center," "a grocery store," "a restaurant," "a condominium complex," "an office building," "a hotel/resort," 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, wet floor without warning signs, pooled water, debris, 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 discover or realize the danger because [explain why - e.g., the substance was clear, lighting was inadequate, attention was appropriately directed elsewhere, etc.].

D. Your Insured's Knowledge

[Select and customize applicable theory:]

Created the Condition: Your insured or its employees created the hazardous condition by [describe how condition was created].

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

• [Prior complaints about the condition]
• [Employee awareness of the condition]
• [Other evidence]

Constructive Knowledge: Your insured had constructive knowledge because:

• The hazardous condition existed for a sufficient length of time such that reasonable care would have led to its discovery
• [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 persons using the land a duty to take reasonable steps to eliminate an unreasonable risk it knew or should have known was posed by a condition on the land, or to warn against that risk.

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 reasonable care for [his/her] own safety. Our client:

• Had a right to assume the premises were reasonably safe;
• Was not required to continuously inspect the floor for hazards;
• Could not have discovered or realized the danger because [explain].

Any assertion of comparative negligence is unsupported by the facts.

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 Circuit Court of the [First/Second/Third/Fifth] Circuit, State of Hawaii, without further notice.

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 Hawaii 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]

Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 662 governs specified tort actions against the State, and § 662-4 generally requires the action to be begun within two years after the claim accrues. Chapter 662 does not govern county liability and § 662-4 does not itself create an Attorney General administrative-presentment prerequisite. State/county identity, immunity, waiver, limitations, notice, service, and venue must be researched separately before relying on this demand.

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 described above supports liability because your insured knew or should have known of an unreasonable risk and failed to take reasonable steps to eliminate it or provide an adequate warning. Our client exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. We urge prompt review of the evidence and a timely response.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

HAWAII-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Premises Standard: A possessor who knows or should know that a condition poses an unreasonable risk owes persons using the land a duty to take reasonable steps to eliminate the risk or warn against it. Reasonableness is ordinarily fact-sensitive. Buchanan; Richardson; Corbett.

• Modified Comparative Negligence: Under HRS § 663-31, recovery is barred only when claimant negligence is greater than the aggregate negligence of the persons against whom recovery is sought; otherwise damages are reduced proportionally.

• Joint and Several Liability: HRS § 663-10.9 preserves joint and several liability for economic damages in personal-injury/death actions. For noneconomic damages in an ordinary negligence action, a tortfeasor assessed at least 25% negligence is jointly and severally liable; one assessed below 25% is liable in proportion to assigned negligence. The statute contains additional claim-specific exceptions.

• Special Damages: Must be specially pleaded. Haw. R. Civ. P. 9(g).

• Punitive Damages: Available after recoverable tort liability on clear and convincing proof of intent to harm, reckless disregard of a substantial risk, or otherwise outrageous or malicious conduct. Guieb v. Guieb, 571 P.3d 382 (Haw. 2025). H.R.S. § 663-10.5 is not punitive-damages authority.

• Government Claims: Chapter 662 applies to specified State tort actions; § 662-4 generally requires suit within two years after accrual. Counties require separate analysis.

• Venue: Under HRS § 603-36(5), other civil actions generally may be brought in the circuit where the claim arose or where the defendant is domiciled. If multiple defendants are domiciled in different circuits, the action may be brought in any circuit where a defendant is domiciled, subject to the statute's other provisions.

• Mediation: Hawaii courts frequently refer cases to mediation. Consider early mediation as a case resolution strategy.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• HRS § 657-7 — Damage to persons or property
• HRS § 663-31 — Comparative negligence
• HRS § 663-10.9 — Joint and several liability
• HRS § 662-4 — State tort-action limitation
• HRS § 603-36 — Circuit-court venue
• Buchanan v. Mutual Unlimited LLC, No. CAAP-18-0000791 (Haw. App. Sept. 21, 2022)
• Guieb v. Guieb, SCWC-20-0000727 (Haw. July 3, 2025)