Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Kentucky

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

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

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

I. KENTUCKY-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations - ONE YEAR

KRS 413.140(1)(a) requires an action for injury to the plaintiff's person to be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued. The current version is effective until July 15, 2026; the amended version effective July 15, 2026 retains that one-year rule. Counsel must calculate [Expiration Date] from the actual accrual facts and account for any tolling or special-defendant requirements. We are prepared to file suit if this matter cannot be resolved before the applicable deadline.

B. Kentucky Premises Liability Duty Standards

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

Kentucky premises liability applies the ordinary negligence elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages. A business proprietor has an affirmative duty to use reasonable care to inspect for hazardous conditions and to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for customers. Lanier v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 431, 433, 437 (Ky. 2003).

The evidence should address whether the possessor:

1. Exercised ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the invitee;
2. Used reasonable inspection and maintenance measures under the circumstances; and
3. Corrected the condition or gave an adequate warning when reasonable care required it.

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Kentucky Law

For a customer injured by a transitory foreign substance on business premises, Lanier uses a burden-shifting rule. The customer must prove that a foreign substance or object was present and was a substantial factor in causing the fall and injury. That proof creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence and shifts to the proprietor the burden of showing that it exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. Lanier, 99 S.W.3d at 435-37.

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

Evidence about who created the condition, how long it existed, inspection timing, customer traffic, recurring risks, and the nature of the business remains relevant to whether the proprietor exercised reasonable care. But Lanier rejected the former rule that always required the injured customer to prove the substance's source or duration.

D. Pure Comparative Fault

Kentucky follows pure comparative fault. KRS 411.182 requires the factfinder in a multi-party tort action to allocate percentages of total fault and requires the court to enter judgment according to those findings and each party's equitable share. Kentucky's Supreme Court applies those principles even in open-and-obvious and natural outdoor-hazard cases. Carter v. Bullitt Host, LLC, 471 S.W.3d 288, 296-300 (Ky. 2015).

Even if our client were found partially at fault (which we dispute), our client would still be entitled to recover damages reduced by any percentage of fault attributed to our client.

E. Transitory Hazards in Self-Service Businesses

Lanier expressly chose a burden-shifting middle ground rather than strict liability under a mode-of-operation rule. The nature of the hazard and the defendant's business are relevant to whether reasonable care was used, and self-service merchandising may increase foreseeable risks of droppage or spillage. Lanier, 99 S.W.3d at 435-37.

[If applicable:] Your insured's [specific self-service practice] foreseeably generated [specific hazard], and its [inspection/protective measure] was unreasonable under the circumstances.

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Kentucky

Kentucky does not place naturally occurring outdoor snow and ice in a categorical no-duty exception. Ordinary-care and comparative-fault principles apply. The factfinder considers whether the land possessor and entrant each acted reasonably under the circumstances, including what each knew or should have known and what response was reasonable during or after a storm. Carter, 471 S.W.3d at 296-300.

[If applicable:] The ice/snow condition in this case created an unreasonably dangerous condition that your insured knew or should have known about and failed to remedy.

G. Open and Obvious Doctrine

The obviousness of a condition does not eliminate the land possessor's general duty of ordinary care. It bears on breach and comparative fault. A court may still resolve a claim as a matter of law when no reasonable factfinder could find a breach, including where the possessor did everything reasonable under the circumstances. Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Soc'y, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 901, 911-18 (Ky. 2013); Carter, 471 S.W.3d at 297-300.

[If applicable:] The condition was not open and obvious because [explain], or circumstances existed that should have alerted your insured 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

Kentucky does not recognize an independent tort claim for spoliation. It addresses destroyed or missing evidence through evidentiary rules, civil remedies, and missing-evidence instructions. A missing-evidence instruction may permit, but does not require, an adverse inference when the factfinder finds intentional, bad-faith loss or destruction; mere negligence does not suffice. Monsanto Co. v. Reed, 950 S.W.2d 811, 815 (Ky. 1997); University Medical Center, Inc. v. Beglin, 375 S.W.3d 783, 787-92 (Ky. 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, Kentucky, 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, a duty of ordinary care under the circumstances, including reasonable inspection and maintenance of the business premises.

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached this duty by:

1. Failing to discover the hazardous condition through reasonable inspection;
2. Failing to eliminate 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 Analysis

Our client exercised reasonable care for [his/her] own safety. Even if any fault were attributed to our client (which we dispute), Kentucky's comparative-fault system requires allocation rather than a categorical contributory-negligence bar. Our client:

• Was using the premises for the invited purpose;
• Was looking and moving reasonably under the circumstances;
• 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 evidence supporting liability, the severity of our client's injuries, and the 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].

GIVEN THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN KENTUCKY, TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.

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 [County] Circuit Court, Kentucky, without further notice.

VIII. BAD FAITH WARNING

[For policy limits or excess exposure cases:]

Our client's documented damages may exceed available policy limits. Please evaluate the claim promptly under the policy and applicable Kentucky law, communicate any time-limited demand to the insured as appropriate, and confirm all potentially applicable coverage. Nothing in this demand assumes that liability, damages, coverage, or any extra-contractual claim has already been established.

IX. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS GOVERNMENT ENTITY]

Negligence claims against the Commonwealth, its agencies, and covered personnel are generally routed to the Kentucky Board of Claims under KRS 49.040, 49.060, and 49.070. KRS 49.040 currently limits a single claim to $250,000 and aggregate awards from a single negligent act to $400,000. Different rules govern local entities and officials. For an injury arising from a defect in a city bridge, street, sidewalk, alley, or other public thoroughfare, KRS 411.110 requires specified notice within 90 days. Government status, immunity, forum, notice, and deadline issues require immediate defendant-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 our position that your insured failed to exercise ordinary care in maintaining the premises and that the resulting condition caused our client's injuries. We invite a prompt, fact-based evaluation. Given the generally applicable one-year limitations period, we urge immediate attention.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Kentucky Bar Association No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

KENTUCKY-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• One-Year Limitations Period: KRS 413.140(1)(a) generally requires personal-injury actions within one year after accrual. Calculate the deadline from the facts and applicable tolling or special-defendant rules.

• Pure Comparative Fault: Under KRS 411.182 and Kentucky's comparative-fault cases, a claimant's fault reduces the award proportionately rather than operating as the former contributory-negligence bar.

• Fault Allocation: KRS 411.182 directs the factfinder to allocate fault and the court to state each party's equitable share. Do not reduce the analysis to a categorical statement without reviewing claim-specific doctrines.

• Foreign-Substance Burden Shift: Under Lanier, proof that a transitory foreign substance caused the customer's fall and injury creates a rebuttable presumption and shifts the reasonable-care burden to the proprietor.

• Punitive Damages: KRS 411.184(2) requires clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice. Subsection (3) separately governs punitive liability of a principal or employer; KRS 411.186 lists assessment factors.

• Government Claims: Analyze KRS 49.040-.180 for Commonwealth claims and KRS 411.110 for covered city-thoroughfare injuries; local immunity and notice issues are defendant- and claim-specific.

• Venue: KRS 452.450 addresses tort actions against corporations with a Kentucky office, place of business, officer, or agent; KRS 452.460 addresses other personal-injury actions against Kentucky-resident defendants. Confirm the defendant's form and all statutory exceptions.

VERIFIED SOURCES

• Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, KRS 413.140 (versions effective before and on July 15, 2026): https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39261
• Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, KRS Chapter 411: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39251
• Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, KRS Chapter 49: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=45450
• Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, KRS 452.450 and 452.460: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19513 and https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19516
• Kentucky Court of Justice, C-Track Public Access (official appellate records): https://appellatepublic.kycourts.net/
• Kentucky Court of Appeals, August 2024 Published Opinions summary (confirming Kentucky's rejection of an independent spoliation claim): https://apps.kycourts.net/Appeals/Opinions/August2024.pdf