DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF KANSAS

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

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

I. KANSAS-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under K.S.A. Section 60-513(a)(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. Kansas Premises Liability Duty Standards

Kansas follows 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. Jones v. Hansen, 254 Kan. 499, 867 P.2d 303 (1994).

Our client was a business invitee on your insured's premises, having entered for a purpose connected with the landowner's business and with the landowner's express or implied invitation.

As to invitees, Kansas law imposes the highest duty of care. A landowner must:

1. Keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for invitees;
2. Exercise reasonable care to discover dangerous conditions and make them safe;
3. Warn of dangers that are known or should have been discovered.

Bowers v. Ottenad, 240 Kan. 208, 729 P.2d 1103 (1986).

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Kansas Law

Kansas law requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition. Duffee v. Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co., 234 Kan. 401, 671 P.2d 1377 (1983).

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 through the exercise of ordinary care; OR
- The defendant created the dangerous condition.

Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 Kan. 439, 618 P.2d 788 (1980).

D. Modified Comparative Fault

Kansas follows a modified comparative fault rule with a 50% bar. Under K.S.A. Section 60-258a, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. However, if the plaintiff's fault is equal to or greater than the causal negligence of the defendant(s), 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 Kansas

Kansas courts recognize that self-service businesses have a heightened duty to inspect and maintain the premises because hazards are a foreseeable consequence of their operations. While Kansas has not formally adopted the mode of operation doctrine to eliminate notice requirements, evidence of the business's self-service operations is relevant to establishing constructive knowledge.

Cobb v. Save-On-Drugs, Inc., 223 Kan. 36, 574 P.2d 562 (1977).

Your insured's mode of operation made the hazard foreseeable.

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Kansas

Kansas follows the natural accumulation rule with important limitations. Under this rule, a landowner is generally not liable for injuries caused by natural accumulations of ice and snow that have not been aggravated by the owner's negligence.

However, liability exists when:
1. The landowner creates an unnatural accumulation through affirmative acts;
2. The landowner aggravates or enhances the danger of natural accumulation;
3. The landowner undertakes to remove snow/ice and does so negligently.

Whetstone v. Hahner-Foreman Co., 227 Kan. 259, 606 P.2d 1019 (1980).

[If applicable:] The ice/snow condition in this case constituted an unnatural accumulation because [explain - e.g., improper drainage, water runoff from building, incomplete removal creating dangerous condition, etc.].

G. Open and Obvious Doctrine

Under Kansas law, a landowner generally has no duty to warn of or protect against conditions that are open and obvious. However, the open and obvious doctrine does not apply when:

1. The landowner should anticipate that the invitee will not discover the condition or will fail to protect themselves;
2. There is something about the condition that would divert a person's attention from the danger.

Jones v. Hansen, 254 Kan. 499, 867 P.2d 303 (1994).

[If applicable:] The condition was not open and obvious because [explain], or your insured should have anticipated that invitees would fail to protect themselves.

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

Kansas courts may impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence, including adverse inference instructions. 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, Kansas, 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:]

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

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 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 Kansas law: the duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, to exercise reasonable care to discover dangerous conditions, and to make them safe or warn of known dangers.

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 Kansas law, an invitee is entitled to assume that the premises are reasonably safe. 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 District Court of [County] County, Kansas, 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. Kansas recognizes claims for insurer bad faith. Spencer v. Aetna Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 227 Kan. 914, 611 P.2d 149 (1980).

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 Kansas Tort Claims Act, K.S.A. Section 75-6101 et seq., governs such claims. Written notice of the claim must be filed with the clerk of the governing body of the governmental entity involved within the applicable limitations period. K.S.A. Section 75-6103.

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, Kansas would view this case favorably for our client. We urge you to give this matter prompt attention.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Kansas Supreme Court No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

KANSAS-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Modified Comparative Fault: Under K.S.A. Section 60-258a, plaintiff is barred from recovery if 50% or more at fault.

• Joint and Several Liability: Kansas has modified joint and several liability. Under K.S.A. Section 60-258a, defendants are jointly and severally liable only for economic damages if their fault is greater than the plaintiff's and greater than the other defendants. Otherwise, defendants are only severally liable.

• Natural Accumulation Rule: Property owners generally not liable for natural accumulations of ice/snow. Focus on proving unnatural accumulation or aggravation of natural conditions.

• Non-Economic Damage Caps: K.S.A. Section 60-19a02 caps non-economic damages in personal injury cases at $325,000 (as of 2022, adjusted for inflation). Confirm current cap.

• Punitive Damages: Under K.S.A. Section 60-3702, punitive damages require proof of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice. Capped at the lesser of $5 million or the defendant's highest gross annual income.

• Kansas Tort Claims Act: Claims against government entities governed by K.S.A. Section 75-6101 et seq. Various immunities apply.

• Venue: Generally where defendant resides or where cause of action arose. K.S.A. Section 60-602.