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

Under Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 657-7, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including 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. Hawaii Premises Liability Duty Standards

Hawaii has adopted the approach set forth in Section 343 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts for determining a possessor of land's liability for physical harm caused to invitees. Gibo v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 459 P.2d 198 (1969).

A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to invitees by a condition on the land if:

1. The possessor knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees;
2. The possessor should expect that invitees will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it; and
3. The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against the danger.

Pickard v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134, 452 P.2d 445 (1969).

Our client was a business invitee on your insured's premises, having entered for a purpose connected with the business conducted thereon.

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Hawaii Law

Under Hawaii law, a landowner may be held liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition if the landowner:

1. Created the dangerous condition; OR
2. Had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition; OR
3. Had constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition (the condition existed for such a length of time that reasonable care would have led to its discovery).

Knodle v. Waikiki Gateway Hotel, Inc., 69 Haw. 376, 742 P.2d 377 (1987).

D. Modified Comparative Negligence

Hawaii follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar. Under Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 663-31, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of negligence, but if the plaintiff's negligence is greater than the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff is completely barred from recovery.

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

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine in Hawaii

Hawaii courts have recognized that self-service businesses have a heightened duty to protect customers from hazards that are foreseeable consequences of their business operations. While Hawaii does not eliminate the notice requirement entirely, evidence of a self-service mode of operation is highly relevant to establishing constructive knowledge.

See Knodle v. Waikiki Gateway Hotel, Inc., 69 Haw. 376, 742 P.2d 377 (1987).

The nature of your insured's business operations made the hazard that caused our client's injuries foreseeable, and your insured failed to implement adequate measures to prevent such hazards.

F. Open and Obvious Doctrine

Under Hawaii law, the open and obvious nature of a condition does not automatically absolve a landowner of liability. Instead, the openness and obviousness of a condition is one factor in determining whether the landowner exercised reasonable care and whether the invitee was comparatively negligent.

Corbett v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners of Wailua Bayview Apartments, 70 Haw. 415, 772 P.2d 693 (1989).

[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

Failure to preserve this evidence may result in claims of spoliation, requests for adverse inference instructions, and other sanctions under Hawaii law.

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 our client, a business invitee, a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangerous conditions on the premises. This includes a duty to inspect the premises, discover dangerous conditions, and either correct them or warn invitees of the danger.

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. 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. Hawaii recognizes claims against insurers for failure to settle within policy limits when liability is clear. Best Place, Inc. v. Penn Am. Ins. Co., 82 Haw. 120, 920 P.2d 334 (1996).

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 Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 662 (State Tort Liability Act) governs claims against the State. Claims must be filed with the Department of the Attorney General. For county claims, specific notice provisions may apply under county ordinances.

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 reasonable care in maintaining the premises safe. The hazardous condition was known or should have been discovered through reasonable inspection. Our client exercised reasonable care and could not have avoided the hazard.

A jury in Hawaii would view this case favorably for our client. We urge you to give this matter prompt attention.

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

• Restatement Approach: Hawaii follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 343 for premises liability cases involving invitees.

• Modified Comparative Negligence: Under Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 663-31, plaintiff is barred from recovery if more than 50% at fault. If 50% or less at fault, damages are reduced proportionally.

• Joint and Several Liability: Under Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 663-10.9, joint and several liability is limited. Generally, defendants are only liable for their proportionate share unless the defendant acted intentionally, was engaged in a criminal act, or other exceptions apply.

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

• Punitive Damages: Available under Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 663-10.5 for wanton, oppressive, or malicious acts. Clear and convincing evidence required.

• Government Claims: State tort claims governed by Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapter 662. Claims must be filed with Attorney General's office within two years.

• Venue: Generally where defendant resides or where cause of action arose. Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 603-36.

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