DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

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

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

I. LOUISIANA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Prescriptive Period (Statute of Limitations) - ONE YEAR

CRITICAL: Under Louisiana Civil Code article 3492, the prescriptive period (statute of limitations) for delictual actions (including premises liability) is one (1) year from the date of injury. This is one of the shortest limitation periods in the nation. This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date], and therefore the prescriptive period expires on [Expiration Date]. We are prepared to file suit immediately if this matter cannot be resolved.

B. Louisiana Merchant Liability Statute - La. R.S. 9:2800.6

Louisiana has codified premises liability for merchants in Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 9:2800.6. This statute governs slip and fall cases in commercial establishments and provides:

A merchant owes a duty of reasonable care to persons who use the premises and shall keep the premises free of any hazardous conditions that reasonably might give rise to damage.

Under La. R.S. 9:2800.6(B), the claimant must prove:

1. The condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm;
2. The harm was reasonably foreseeable;
3. The merchant either created or had actual or constructive notice of the condition prior to the occurrence; AND
4. The merchant failed to exercise reasonable care.

C. Constructive Notice Under Louisiana Law

Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 9:2800.6(C)(1) provides that a claimant must show the condition existed for such a period of time that it would have been discovered if the merchant had exercised reasonable care.

Additionally, under La. R.S. 9:2800.6(C)(2), the absence of a written or verbal cleanup or safety procedure is insufficient, alone, to prove failure to exercise reasonable care.

Constructive notice may be established by:
- Evidence of the condition's appearance suggesting it existed for an extended period;
- Evidence of inadequate inspection procedures;
- Employee presence in the area;
- Circumstantial evidence regarding the length of time the hazard existed.

White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 699 So. 2d 1081 (La. 1997).

D. Pure Comparative Fault

Louisiana follows a pure comparative fault rule. Under Louisiana Civil Code article 2323, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault, but recovery is never completely barred regardless of the plaintiff's percentage of fault.

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.

E. Custodian Liability - La. Civ. Code art. 2317.1

In addition to the merchant liability statute, Louisiana Civil Code article 2317.1 imposes liability on the custodian (owner or person having custody) of a thing for damage caused by a ruin, vice, or defect in the thing, when the custodian knew or should have known of the ruin, vice, or defect.

Your insured, as custodian of the premises, is liable under this article.

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Louisiana

While Louisiana rarely experiences significant snow and ice accumulation, property owners remain subject to the general duty of reasonable care regarding any hazardous conditions, including ice or frost. The merchant liability statute (La. R.S. 9:2800.6) and custodian liability (La. Civ. Code art. 2317.1) apply to ice and snow conditions.

[If applicable:] The ice/frost condition in this case created an unreasonable risk of harm that your insured knew or should have known about and failed to remedy.

G. Open and Obvious Doctrine

Louisiana has limited the "open and obvious" defense. Under Louisiana law, the open and obvious nature of a condition does not automatically bar recovery. Instead, it is one factor in the comparative fault analysis. The condition may be "unreasonably dangerous" despite its obviousness if:

1. The possibility of harm is not fully appreciated;
2. The magnitude of the potential harm is great;
3. The person has no alternative but to be exposed to the risk.

Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings, 113 So. 3d 175 (La. 2013).

[If applicable:] Even if the condition had observable characteristics, it remained unreasonably dangerous because [explain].

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 (though absence alone is insufficient to prove negligence under La. R.S. 9:2800.6(C)(2))
• 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

Louisiana courts recognize spoliation claims and may impose sanctions including adverse inference instructions and, in egregious cases, dismissal or default. Reynolds v. Bordelon, 172 So. 3d 607 (La. 2015). Failure to preserve this evidence will be addressed in litigation.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], [Parish] Parish, Louisiana, 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 as its custodian.

[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, debris, etc.]

This condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm to persons using the premises because [explain why the condition was unreasonably dangerous].

[Describe condition characteristics that establish notice - e.g., dirty appearance, tracked footprints, size of spill, duration based on witness testimony, 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 such a period of time that it would have been discovered if reasonable care had been exercised
- [Describe evidence of duration - appearance, witness testimony, employee presence in area, etc.]
- [Describe inadequate inspection procedures]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Merchant Liability - La. R.S. 9:2800.6

Your insured is liable under Louisiana's Merchant Liability Statute:

1. Unreasonable Risk of Harm: The condition [describe condition] presented an unreasonable risk of harm to customers.

2. Reasonably Foreseeable Harm: The harm from this condition was reasonably foreseeable.

3. Actual or Constructive Notice: Your insured [created the condition / had actual knowledge of the condition / had constructive knowledge because the condition existed for sufficient time that it would have been discovered through reasonable care].

4. Failure to Exercise Reasonable Care: Your insured failed to exercise reasonable care by [failing to inspect / failing to clean up / failing to warn / failing to barricade / etc.].

B. Custodian Liability - La. Civ. Code art. 2317.1

Your insured, as custodian of the premises, is liable for damage caused by the defective condition. Your insured knew or should have known of the hazardous condition and failed to remedy it.

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), Louisiana's pure comparative fault system ensures that our client will recover damages. 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. General Damages (Pain and Suffering)

Under Louisiana law, general damages include physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and disfigurement. Our client has experienced:

• Physical pain from injuries sustained
• Mental anguish, anxiety, and depression
• Loss of enjoyment of life and recreational activities
• Interference with family relationships and activities
• Permanent impairment and scarring
• [Other general 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].

GIVEN THE ONE-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD IN LOUISIANA, 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 [Parish] Parish District Court / [Division] Judicial District Court 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. Louisiana law imposes duties of good faith on insurers. La. R.S. 22:1892 and 22:1973 provide penalties for failure to pay claims timely and for arbitrary and capricious denial of claims.

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 Louisiana law provides limited waiver of sovereign immunity. Claims against the State are governed by La. R.S. 13:5101 et seq. (State Liability Act). Claims against local government entities may be governed by the Louisiana Governmental Claims Act (La. R.S. 13:5101.1) or common law. Various notice requirements and caps may apply.

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 under Louisiana's Merchant Liability Statute (La. R.S. 9:2800.6) and the Louisiana Civil Code's custodian liability provisions (La. Civ. Code arts. 2317.1 and 2323). The hazardous condition presented an unreasonable risk of harm, your insured knew or should have known of the condition, and your insured failed to exercise reasonable care.

A jury in [Parish] Parish would view this case favorably for our client. Given the one-year prescriptive period, we urge you to give this matter immediate and serious attention.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

LOUISIANA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• ONE-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD: Critical - Louisiana has one of the shortest limitation periods in the country. La. Civ. Code art. 3492. Prescription is a peremptory exception that extinguishes the claim.

• Merchant Liability Statute: La. R.S. 9:2800.6 codifies premises liability for merchants. Must prove the four elements: unreasonable risk, foreseeability, notice, and failure to exercise reasonable care.

• Pure Comparative Fault: Under La. Civ. Code art. 2323, plaintiff can recover even if majority at fault. Recovery reduced by percentage of fault.

• Joint and Several Liability (Solidary Liability): Under La. Civ. Code art. 2324, solidary (joint and several) liability is abolished for negligence cases. Defendants are liable only for their proportionate share of fault.

• Collateral Source Rule: Louisiana follows a modified collateral source rule. La. R.S. 9:2800.25 permits introduction of evidence of collateral source payments, subject to limitations.

• Penalties for Bad Faith: La. R.S. 22:1892 and 22:1973 provide statutory penalties for insurer bad faith, including penalty damages and attorney's fees.

• Direct Action Against Insurers: Louisiana permits direct action against liability insurers. La. R.S. 22:1269.

• Venue: La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 42 et seq. Generally where defendant domiciled or where action or omission occurred.