Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Kansas

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

K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4) generally provides two years for an action for injury to another's rights not arising on contract. Under subsection (b), accrual ordinarily occurs when the act first causes substantial injury, or when the fact of injury becomes reasonably ascertainable if later, subject to a ten-year repose period. Counsel must calculate [Expiration Date] using the facts, tolling rules, and any special-defendant requirements.

B. Kansas Premises Liability Duty Standards

Kansas no longer distinguishes invitees from licensees when defining the duty to persons present with the occupier's consent. The occupier owes both a duty of reasonable care under all the circumstances; the common-law trespasser rules remain distinct. Jones v. Hansen, 254 Kan. 499, 509-10, 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.

Relevant reasonable-care considerations include foreseeability and magnitude of harm, the benefit of maintaining the condition, and the burden of protection. Jones, 254 Kan. at 509-10. For a transitory floor condition, the evidence should address whether:

1. The proprietor or a responsible person created or maintained the condition;
2. The proprietor had actual notice; or
3. The condition existed long enough that ordinary care would have discovered it.

Carter v. Food Center, Inc., 207 Kan. 332, 335-36, 485 P.2d 306 (1971); Elrod v. Walls, Inc., 205 Kan. 808, 811-12, 473 P.2d 12 (1970).

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Kansas Law

When a dangerous floor condition is neither created by nor traceable to the proprietor or responsible persons, Kansas generally requires actual notice or evidence that the condition existed long enough to support constructive notice. When the condition is traceable to the proprietor's own act or authorized activity, separate notice proof is unnecessary. Carter, 207 Kan. at 335-36.

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

Constructive Knowledge: Evidence may include condition duration, appearance, traffic, inspection timing, and the vigilance reasonably commensurate with the risk. Elrod, 205 Kan. at 811-13.

D. Modified Comparative Fault

Kansas follows a modified comparative fault rule. Under K.S.A. 60-258a(a), a claimant may recover only when the claimant's negligence is less than the causal negligence of the party or parties against whom the claim is made; permitted recovery is reduced proportionately. Subsection (d) generally assigns each liable party a proportionate share of the recoverable award.

For claims filed on or after July 1, 2026, 2026 Senate Bill 462 § 1 separately bars a person who engaged, participated in, or attempted specified criminal wrongful conduct from recovering negligence damages related to that conduct, subject to the act's definitions and minor-trespass exception.

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

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine in Kansas

Kansas has adopted a mode-of-operation rule. A plaintiff need not prove actual or constructive notice of the specific transitory condition if the proprietor could reasonably foresee that the chosen mode of operation would regularly produce that type of dangerous condition and failed to use reasonable protective measures commensurate with the risk.

Jackson v. K-Mart Corp., 251 Kan. 700, 710-11, 840 P.2d 463 (1992).

[If applicable:] Your insured's [specific operating practice] regularly generated [specific hazard], and the evidence shows that [inspection or protective measures] were unreasonable under the circumstances.

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Kansas

Under Kansas's winter-storm doctrine, a business proprietor ordinarily may await the end of a winter storm and a reasonable time afterward before removing ice and snow from outdoor entrance walks, platforms, or steps, absent unusual circumstances. Agnew v. Dillons, Inc., 16 Kan. App. 2d 298, Syl. ¶ 2, 822 P.2d 1049 (1991). The doctrine is fact-sensitive, and a landowner's specific promises or undertaking may affect the duty analysis. Worley v. Bradford Pointe Apartments, Inc., 31 Kan. App. 2d 737, 743-45, 73 P.3d 149 (2003).

[If applicable:] The fall occurred [after the storm ended and after a reasonable response time / under unusual circumstances / after a specific undertaking], because [facts]. For a governmental public way or place, also analyze K.S.A. 75-6104(a)(12).

G. Open and Obvious Doctrine

Kansas generally imposes no duty to warn of or make safe dangers that a reasonable visitor would recognize as known, open, or obvious. A duty may nevertheless remain when the proprietor knows or has reason to know the visitor is likely to be distracted by the proprietor's actions, advisements, or requests and thus is unlikely to discover, remember, or protect against the condition.

Bonnette v. Triple D Auto Parts, Inc., 55 Kan. App. 2d 723, Syl. ¶¶ 6-7, 422 P.3d 30 (2017).

[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 does not recognize a freestanding spoliation tort absent an independent source of duty, and preservation remedies depend on the relationship, conduct, prejudice, and applicable procedural rules. Superior Boiler Works, Inc. v. Kimball, 292 Kan. 885, Syl. ¶¶ 1-4, 259 P.3d 676 (2011). Please suspend routine deletion or overwriting of the identified material.

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, who entered with consent for a business purpose, reasonable care under all the circumstances. The condition-specific evidence supports breach under [creation / actual notice / constructive notice / mode of operation].

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 available liability evidence, the severity of our client's injuries, and the documented damages, 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:]

When a liability insurer controls settlement, Kansas requires it to exercise good faith and due care and to give at least equal consideration to the insured's interests. Whether refusal of a within-limits offer breaches that duty depends on the circumstances; an excess judgment is not automatic liability. Bollinger v. Nuss, 202 Kan. 326, 332-42, 449 P.2d 502 (1969). Please communicate this demand and any potential limits issue to your insured.

IX. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS GOVERNMENT ENTITY]

The Kansas Tort Claims Act generally makes governmental liability the rule subject to statutory limitations and immunities. K.S.A. 75-6103, 75-6104. For a claim against a municipality or municipal employee, K.S.A. 12-105b(d) requires a written notice to the clerk or governing body containing the specified claimant, factual, employee, injury, and monetary-demand information. Suit generally must await denial or 120 days, whichever occurs first; the statute provides a minimum 90-day filing period after denial or deemed denial. Section 75-6105 generally caps all claims from one occurrence at $500,000 and bars punitive damages and prejudgment interest against the governmental entity. Section 75-6104(a)(12) separately addresses weather-caused snow or ice on public ways and places. Government identity and immunity require claim-specific review.

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 available evidence supports liability because your insured [created / knew of / reasonably should have discovered / regularly generated through its mode of operation] the condition and failed to use reasonable protective measures. Our client exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. 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.

• Wrongful Conduct: 2026 Senate Bill 462 § 1 creates a separate claim-filing-based bar for negligence damages related to specified criminal conduct. It applies to claims filed on or after July 1, 2026 and must be analyzed independently from comparative negligence.

• Allocation: Under K.S.A. 60-258a(d), each party against whom recovery is permitted is generally liable for the proportion of the award corresponding to that party's causal negligence.

• Winter Storm: Agnew generally permits a proprietor to await the storm's end and a reasonable time afterward, absent unusual circumstances; a specific undertaking may affect the analysis. Worley.

• Ordinary Personal-Injury Noneconomic Damages: K.S.A. 60-19a02 was held unconstitutional as applied to personal-injury actions in Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd., 309 Kan. 1127, 442 P.3d 509 (2019). Claim-specific statutory limits, including KTCA and wrongful-death limits, require separate analysis.

• Punitive Damages: K.S.A. 60-3702 requires clear and convincing proof of willful conduct, wanton conduct, fraud, or malice, with authorization or ratification limits for entity liability. The ordinary cap is the lesser of $5 million or the defendant's highest gross annual income in the preceding five years, but subsection (e) permits a net-worth alternative when gross income is clearly inadequate and subsection (f) provides a profitability alternative.

• Kansas Tort Claims Act: Municipal notice is governed by K.S.A. 12-105b(d), not K.S.A. 75-6103. The $500,000 occurrence cap and punitive/prejudgment-interest prohibitions are in K.S.A. 75-6105; immunities are claim-specific under K.S.A. 75-6104.

• Venue: Against a resident defendant, generally the county where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arose (K.S.A. 60-603); against a corporation, its registered office or where the cause of action arose (K.S.A. 60-604). (K.S.A. 60-602 governs only local actions such as penalties and suits against public officers.)

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• K.S.A. 60-513 — limitations, accrual, and repose
• K.S.A. 60-258a — comparative negligence and allocation
• 2026 Senate Bill 462 — wrongful-conduct bar and effective claim date
• K.S.A. 60-3702 — punitive proof, procedure, entity liability, and limits
• K.S.A. 12-105b — municipal claim notice
• K.S.A. 75-6104 and 75-6105 — immunities, cap, and damages limits
• K.S.A. 60-603 and 60-604 — venue
• Jones v. Hansen — reasonable care to consensual entrants
• Carter v. Food Center, Inc. — creation and notice routes
• Jackson v. K-Mart Corp. — Kansas mode-of-operation rule
• Elrod v. Walls, Inc. — notice and risk-commensurate inspection
• Agnew v. Dillons, Inc. — winter-storm doctrine
• Worley v. Bradford Pointe Apartments, Inc. — winter storm and undertaking
• Bonnette v. Triple D Auto Parts, Inc. — known-or-obvious conditions
• Superior Boiler Works, Inc. v. Kimball — spoliation duty
• Hilburn v. Enerpipe Ltd. — ordinary personal-injury noneconomic cap unconstitutional
• Bollinger v. Nuss — third-party settlement duty