DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF IDAHO

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

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

I. IDAHO-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Idaho Code Section 5-219(4), 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. Idaho Premises Liability Duty Standards

Idaho has adopted the traditional common law classifications of entrants onto land. The duty owed by a landowner depends on the status of the entrant as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. Holzheimer v. Johannesen, 125 Idaho 397, 871 P.2d 814 (1994).

Our client was a business invitee on your insured's premises, having entered for a purpose connected with the business or with an activity conducted on the premises, and for the mutual benefit of both parties.

As to invitees, your insured owed the highest duty of care, which includes:

1. A duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition;
2. A duty to inspect the premises for dangerous conditions;
3. A duty to warn of dangers that are known or reasonably discoverable and that are not obvious to the invitee.

Boots ex rel. Boots v. Winters, 145 Idaho 389, 179 P.3d 352 (Ct. App. 2008).

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Idaho Law

Idaho law requires proof that the landowner knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the dangerous condition. Harrison v. Taylor, 115 Idaho 588, 768 P.2d 1321 (1989).

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

Constructive Knowledge: Established when:
- The condition existed for such a length of time that it should have been discovered; OR
- The condition was created by the landowner or its agents; OR
- The condition was one that the landowner should have anticipated given its business operations.

Tommerup v. Albertson's, Inc., 101 Idaho 1, 607 P.2d 1055 (1980).

D. Modified Comparative Negligence

Idaho follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 50% bar. Under Idaho Code Section 6-801, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of negligence, but if the plaintiff's negligence is equal to or greater than the combined negligence of all persons causing the damages, the plaintiff is completely barred from recovery.

Our client exercised reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident.

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine in Idaho

While Idaho has not formally adopted the "mode of operation" doctrine, Idaho courts consider the foreseeability of hazards based on a defendant's business operations. Self-service businesses may be held to a higher standard of inspection because spills and hazards are foreseeable consequences of their operations.

See Tommerup v. Albertson's, Inc., 101 Idaho 1, 607 P.2d 1055 (1980) (discussing the relationship between business operations and constructive notice).

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Idaho

Idaho property owners have a duty to exercise reasonable care regarding snow and ice accumulation on their premises. However, Idaho courts have recognized the "natural accumulation" rule in some contexts, which may limit liability for natural accumulations of ice and snow that have not been altered or enhanced by the property owner.

Nevertheless, a property owner may be liable for:
1. Creating an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow;
2. Failing to remedy a hazardous condition after a reasonable time to discover it;
3. Failing to warn of known ice or snow hazards.

See Orthman v. Idaho Power Co., 126 Idaho 960, 895 P.2d 561 (1995).

[If applicable:] The ice/snow condition in this case [was an unnatural accumulation caused by / had existed for a sufficient period that it should have been remediated by] your insured.

G. Open and Obvious Doctrine

Under Idaho law, a landowner generally has no duty to warn or protect against conditions that are known or obvious to the invitee. However, a landowner may still be liable if:

1. The landowner should anticipate that the invitee will encounter the danger despite its obviousness; OR
2. The landowner should anticipate that the invitee will be unable to protect themselves from the danger.

Brooks v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 Idaho 22, 423 P.3d 443 (2018).

[If applicable:] The condition was not open and obvious because [explain], or despite any arguable obviousness, your insured should have anticipated that invitees would encounter the danger.

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

Idaho courts recognize spoliation and may impose sanctions, including adverse inference instructions, for the intentional or negligent destruction of evidence. Failure to preserve this evidence will be addressed in litigation.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], [County] County, Idaho, 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, ice accumulation, debris, etc.]

[Describe condition characteristics that establish notice - e.g., dirty appearance, tracked footprints, size of spill, duration based on witness testimony, weather conditions, 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 appropriately directed elsewhere, condition was concealed, 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 reasonable inspection
- [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 Idaho law: the duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, to inspect for dangerous conditions, and to warn of or remedy dangers that are not obvious. Boots ex rel. Boots v. Winters, 145 Idaho 389, 179 P.3d 352 (Ct. App. 2008).

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. Under Idaho law, an invitee is entitled to assume that the premises are reasonably safe. Splinter v. City of Nampa, 74 Idaho 1, 256 P.2d 215 (1953). 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 observed the hazard through the exercise of ordinary care 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

Under Idaho Code Section 6-1601, non-economic damages are permitted in personal injury cases. 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 District Court of the [Judicial District], [County] County, Idaho, 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. Idaho recognizes claims for insurer bad faith in failing to settle within policy limits when liability is clear. Robinson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 137 Idaho 173, 45 P.3d 829 (2002).

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 the Idaho Tort Claims Act, Idaho Code Sections 6-901 et seq., governs such claims. Notice of claim must be filed within 180 days of the incident. I.C. Section 6-906. [Notice has been filed / is being filed 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 maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. 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 [County] County, Idaho would view this case favorably for our client. We urge you to give this matter prompt attention.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

IDAHO-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Modified Comparative Fault: Under I.C. Section 6-801, plaintiff is barred from recovery if 50% or more at fault. If less than 50% at fault, damages are reduced proportionally.

• Joint and Several Liability: Idaho has abolished joint and several liability. Under I.C. Section 6-803, each defendant is only liable for their proportionate share of damages (several liability only).

• Punitive Damages: Under I.C. Section 6-1604, punitive damages require proof by clear and convincing evidence of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous conduct. Capped at the greater of $250,000 or three times compensatory damages.

• Collateral Source Rule: Idaho follows the collateral source rule. I.C. Section 6-1606.

• Idaho Tort Claims Act: Claims against government entities must comply with I.C. Sections 6-901 et seq. 180-day notice requirement. I.C. Section 6-906.

• Prejudgment Interest: Available under I.C. Section 28-22-104.

• Venue: Generally where defendant resides or where cause of action arose. I.C. Section 5-401.