DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF ILLINOIS

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

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

I. ILLINOIS-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under 735 ILCS 5/13-202, 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. Illinois Premises Liability Duty Standards

Illinois law has evolved to eliminate the traditional common law distinctions between invitees and licensees. Under Illinois law, a landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to all lawful visitors, whether invitees or licensees. Genaust v. Illinois Power Co., 62 Ill. 2d 456, 343 N.E.2d 465 (1976).

Our client was a lawful visitor (business invitee) on your insured's premises. Your insured owed our client the duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

As articulated in Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 554 N.E.2d 223 (1990), in a premises liability action, the plaintiff must prove:

1. The existence of a condition on the premises that presented an unreasonable risk of harm;
2. The defendant knew or should have known of the condition;
3. The defendant should have anticipated that persons on the premises would fail to protect themselves from the danger;
4. The plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by the condition.

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Illinois Law

Illinois law requires proof that the property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Culli v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 182 Ill. 2d 406, 695 N.E.2d 1276 (1998).

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 a sufficient length of time that it would have been discovered if the defendant had exercised ordinary care; OR
- Was part of a recurring condition that the defendant should have anticipated.

Tomczak v. Planetsphere, Inc., 315 Ill. App. 3d 1033, 735 N.E.2d 662 (1st Dist. 2000).

D. Mode of Operation Doctrine in Illinois

Illinois has adopted a modified "mode of operation" rule. Under this doctrine, when a business operates in a manner that makes it reasonably foreseeable that hazardous conditions will occur, the plaintiff may establish constructive notice by proving:

1. The mode of operation of the business makes it reasonably foreseeable that a dangerous condition would occur; and
2. The dangerous condition was one that could reasonably be expected to occur.

Donoho v. O'Connell's Inc., 13 Ill. 2d 113, 148 N.E.2d 434 (1958).

Your insured's self-service operation made the hazard foreseeable. The mode of operation rule applies to establish constructive notice.

E. Modified Comparative Negligence

Illinois follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar. Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of negligence. However, if the plaintiff's negligence is more than 50% of the proximate cause of the injury, the plaintiff is completely barred from recovery.

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

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Illinois

Illinois follows the natural accumulation rule. Under this rule, a property owner generally has no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice, snow, or water. However, liability may exist when:

1. The property owner's affirmative conduct caused an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow;
2. The property owner voluntarily undertook to remove snow/ice and did so negligently;
3. The property owner created or aggravated a hazardous condition.

Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215, 938 N.E.2d 440 (2010).

Unnatural accumulation occurs when the property owner's negligent acts or omissions cause water, snow, or ice to accumulate, or substantially add to the dangers of the natural accumulation.

[If applicable:] The ice/snow condition in this case constituted an unnatural accumulation because [explain - e.g., water from downspout, improper drainage, melting/refreezing caused by the building, failure to properly salt after voluntarily undertaking removal, etc.].

G. Open and Obvious Doctrine

Under Illinois law, a landowner generally has no duty to warn or protect against conditions that are open and obvious. Bucheleres v. Chicago Park District, 171 Ill. 2d 435, 665 N.E.2d 826 (1996). However, the open and obvious doctrine does not apply when:

1. The distraction exception applies - the owner should expect that the invitee will be distracted and fail to protect themselves;
2. The deliberate encounter exception applies - the owner should expect that the invitee will proceed despite the obvious danger because doing so is necessary.

Ward v. K mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 554 N.E.2d 223 (1990).

[If applicable:] The condition was not open and obvious because [explain], or the distraction/deliberate encounter exception applies.

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

Illinois courts impose severe sanctions for spoliation of evidence, including adverse inference instructions and independent tort claims. Boyd v. Travelers Ins. Co., 166 Ill. 2d 188, 652 N.E.2d 267 (1995). 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, Illinois, 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]

Mode of Operation: The hazard was a foreseeable result of your insured's mode of operation.

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

Your insured owed our client the duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition. This duty includes the obligation to discover and remedy dangerous conditions, or to warn of such conditions if they cannot be remedied.

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. Illinois law does not impose upon lawful visitors a duty to constantly watch where they step. Corcoran v. Village of Libertyville, 73 Ill. 2d 316, 383 N.E.2d 177 (1978). 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].

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 [County] County, Illinois, 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. Illinois recognizes bad faith claims against insurers for failure to settle within policy limits. Haddick ex rel. Griffith v. Valor Ins., 198 Ill. 2d 409, 763 N.E.2d 299 (2001).

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 Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (745 ILCS 10/1-101 et seq.) governs such claims. A civil action must be commenced within one year of accrual. 745 ILCS 10/8-101. Additionally, within one year, plaintiff must serve a written notice on the public entity containing specified information. 745 ILCS 10/8-102.

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 lawful visitor who was injured due to your insured's failure to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the premises. 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, Illinois would view this case favorably for our client. We urge you to give this matter prompt attention.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Illinois ARDC No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

ILLINOIS-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Modified Comparative Fault: Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116, plaintiff is barred from recovery if more than 50% at fault.

• Joint and Several Liability: Illinois has modified joint and several liability. Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1117, defendants less than 25% at fault are only severally liable for non-economic damages.

• Natural Accumulation Rule: Important in snow/ice cases - property owners generally not liable for natural accumulations. Focus on proving unnatural accumulation.

• Mode of Operation: Provides alternative to proving actual notice in self-service establishment cases.

• Spoliation: Illinois recognizes both negligent and intentional spoliation claims. Boyd v. Travelers Ins. Co., 166 Ill. 2d 188 (1995).

• Medical Bills: Under 735 ILCS 5/8-1901, evidence of medical expenses is limited to the amount actually paid or required to be paid.

• Government Claims: One-year statute of limitations and notice requirements under 745 ILCS 10/8-101 and 8-102.

• Venue: Generally proper where defendant resides or where cause of action arose. 735 ILCS 5/2-101.