Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Louisiana

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) - TWO YEARS (Post-7/1/2024)

Louisiana Civil Code article 3493.1 provides a two-year liberative prescription for delictual actions beginning when injury or damage is sustained. Acts 2024, No. 423 applies prospectively to delictual actions arising after July 1, 2024; earlier claims may remain governed by former article 3492's one-year period. Counsel must calculate [Expiration Date] from the facts and any claim-specific interruption, suspension, or special rule.

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.

Evidence relevant to the statutory temporal showing may include:

• Evidence of the condition's appearance suggesting it existed for an extended period;
• Evidence of inadequate inspection procedures;
• Employee presence plus evidence that the employee knew or should have known of the condition;
• Circumstantial evidence regarding the length of time the hazard existed.

D. Comparative Fault

The version of Louisiana Civil Code article 2323 effective January 1, 2026 bars recovery when the injured person's negligence is 51% or greater and proportionately reduces recovery below that threshold. The prior version used pure comparative fault. Counsel must determine which version governs the claim rather than assuming the filing date controls.

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.

[If applicable to a ruin, vice, or defect in a thing:] The evidence supports custody, actual or constructive knowledge, preventability through reasonable care, and failure to use that care.

F. Open and Obvious Conditions

Under Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 359 So. 3d 467, 478-83 (La. 2023), obviousness is considered in the breach analysis, not as elimination of duty. Courts apply a risk-utility balance considering: (1) the condition's utility; (2) the likelihood and magnitude of harm, including whether the condition was obvious and apparent to an objectively reasonable person; (3) prevention cost; and (4) the nature and social utility or inherent danger of the plaintiff's activity. Summary judgment remains available when no reasonable juror could find an unreasonable risk or breach.

[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 does not recognize a tort of negligent spoliation. Available avenues may include evidentiary or discovery remedies against litigants, an adverse presumption in an appropriate case, criminal remedies, a preservation order, or contractual remedies where a preservation agreement exists. Reynolds v. Bordelon, 172 So. 3d 589, 591, 600-01 (La. 2015). Please suspend routine deletion or overwriting of the identified material.

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

If the condition was a ruin, vice, or defect in a thing within article 2317.1, the evidence supports the required custody, knowledge, preventability, and reasonable-care elements.

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. The governing version of article 2323 and any allocation must be based on the incident date, evidence, and applicable transition law. 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. 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 APPLICABLE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD, 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 documented damages may exceed available policy limits. Please evaluate the claim promptly under the policy and current Louisiana law, communicate this demand to the insured as appropriate, and confirm all potentially applicable coverage. Any statutory or extra-contractual issue depends on the claimant's status, satisfactory proof, amounts due, settlement agreements, timing, and the governing version of the insurance statutes.

IX. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS GOVERNMENT ENTITY]

La. R.S. 13:5106(A) requires suits against the State, a state agency, or a political subdivision to be brought in Louisiana state court. Subsection (B) limits covered personal-injury and wrongful-death damages to $500,000 per person, exclusive of specified property, medical, and earnings categories, and contains special future-medical provisions. Government identity, venue, service, immunity, jury-trial restrictions, and payment rules require 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 the merchant-liability elements under La. R.S. 9:2800.6 and, when the condition is a defect in a thing, the applicable Civil Code elements. We invite a prompt, fact-based evaluation. Given the claim-specific prescriptive period, we urge immediate 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

• Two-Year Prescription: Article 3493.1 applies prospectively to delictual actions arising after July 1, 2024. Earlier claims may remain subject to former article 3492. Prescription and peremption are distinct concepts; calculate and plead the correct rule.

• 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.

• Comparative Fault: Current article 2323 bars recovery at 51% or greater claimant negligence and proportionately reduces recovery below 51%. Determine the governing version and transition rule for older incidents.

• Government Claims: Review La. R.S. 13:5101-.10, including § 5106's Louisiana-state-court requirement, $500,000 covered-damages limit, and future-medical provisions.

VERIFIED SOURCES

• Louisiana Legislature, Civil Code article 3493.1: https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=1386443
• Louisiana Legislature, Civil Code article 2317.1: https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=109379
• Louisiana Legislature, Civil Code article 2323: https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/law.aspx?d=109387
• Louisiana Legislature, La. R.S. 9:2800.6: https://legis.la.gov/legis/law.aspx?d=107268
• Louisiana Legislature, La. R.S. 13:5106: https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=77934
• Louisiana Supreme Court, Farrell v. Circle K Stores, Inc.: https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2023/22-0849.CC.OPN.pdf
• Louisiana Supreme Court, Reynolds v. Bordelon: https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2015/14C2362.opn.pdf