DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

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] in [City/Town], [County] County, Massachusetts. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.

I. MASSACHUSETTS-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 260, Section 2A, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is three (3) 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].

B. Massachusetts Comparative Negligence

Massachusetts follows modified comparative negligence under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, Section 85. A plaintiff may recover damages diminished in proportion to their percentage of negligence, provided the plaintiff's negligence is not greater than the total negligence of all defendants (i.e., plaintiff must be 50% or less at fault to recover).

Our client was exercising all reasonable care at the time of this incident and bears no fault.

C. Massachusetts Premises Liability Standards

Unified Duty of Reasonable Care:
Massachusetts abolished the traditional common law distinctions between invitees, licensees, and trespassers in Mounsey v. Ellard, 363 Mass. 693, 297 N.E.2d 43 (1973). Property owners now owe a single duty of reasonable care to all lawful visitors.

The duty requires property owners to maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including:
- The likelihood of injury to others
- The seriousness of the injury
- The burden of avoiding the risk

Toubiana v. Priestly, 402 Mass. 84, 520 N.E.2d 1307 (1988).

D. Massachusetts Snow and Ice Liability

The Papadopoulos Rule - Natural Accumulation Doctrine ABOLISHED:
In Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., 457 Mass. 368, 930 N.E.2d 142 (2010), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court abolished the natural accumulation rule. Property owners now have a duty to act reasonably to remove or remediate snow and ice within a reasonable time after precipitation ends.

This means:
1. Property owners must act within a reasonable time after a storm ends to clear snow and ice
2. Property owners must use reasonable care in snow removal operations
3. The "natural accumulation" defense is no longer available

Key considerations under Papadopoulos:
- Time elapsed since end of storm
- Weather conditions following the storm
- Efforts undertaken to remove or treat snow/ice
- Industry standards for snow removal
- The nature of the property and foot traffic expected

[If snow/ice case:] Your insured failed to act within a reasonable time to remove or remediate the snow/ice accumulation that caused our client's fall.

E. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

Massachusetts Tort Claims Act (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258):
Claims against Massachusetts municipalities require presentment within two (2) years of the date of injury. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, Section 4.

Defective Highway Statute (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 84, Section 15):
For claims involving defective conditions on public ways, written notice must be provided within 30 days of injury.

[If applicable:] Proper notice [has been / will be] provided to [Government Entity].

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
• Snow removal logs, contracts, and salt/sand application records
• Prior complaints regarding the hazardous condition
• Prior incidents or falls at the same or similar location
• Work orders and maintenance requests

Massachusetts courts recognize adverse inference sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Fletcher v. Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co., 437 Mass. 544, 773 N.E.2d 420 (2002).

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type] in [City/Town], [County] County, Massachusetts. At all relevant times, [Property Owner Name] owned, operated, and/or controlled the subject 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]

[CUSTOMIZE BASED ON TYPE OF HAZARD:]

Wet/Slippery Floor: A liquid substance was present on the floor in the [specific location], creating an extremely slippery and dangerous walking surface. There were no warning signs, cones, or barriers in place.

Ice/Snow Accumulation: Snow and/or ice had accumulated at [location]. Pursuant to Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., your insured had a duty to remove or remediate this hazard within a reasonable time. The last precipitation ended on [date/time], and more than [number] hours had elapsed before our client's fall.

Uneven Walking Surface: A raised or uneven section of [flooring / sidewalk / parking lot] created a tripping hazard.

Defective Stairs/Steps: The stairway at [location] was defective due to [describe defect].

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity] when [he/she] [describe the fall]:

[Detailed narrative of the incident]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

Under Mounsey v. Ellard, 363 Mass. 693, 297 N.E.2d 43 (1973), your insured owed our client a duty of reasonable care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached this duty by:

1. Failure to Maintain Safe Premises:
- [Describe specific failures]

2. Actual or Constructive Notice:
Your insured [created the hazardous condition / had actual knowledge of the condition / had constructive knowledge because the condition existed long enough that it should have been discovered through reasonable inspection].

Sullivan v. Boston Gas Co., 414 Mass. 129, 605 N.E.2d 805 (1993) (discussing notice requirements).

3. [If Snow/Ice Case] Violation of Papadopoulos Standard:
Under Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., 457 Mass. 368, 930 N.E.2d 142 (2010), your insured had a duty to act reasonably to remove or remediate snow and ice. Your insured failed to:
- Clear the area within a reasonable time after precipitation ended
- Apply adequate salt, sand, or de-icing agents
- Warn of the hazardous condition
- Implement reasonable snow removal procedures

C. Mode of Operation Doctrine

[For retail/self-service establishments:]
Massachusetts recognizes the mode of operation approach. Where a business's mode of operation creates a foreseeable risk that customers will cause dangerous conditions, constructive notice may be established. Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc., 448 Mass. 780, 863 N.E.2d 1276 (2007).

D. Causation

The dangerous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries.

E. Comparative Negligence Defense Rejected

Our client exercised reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident:
- [Evidence of client's due care]
- The hazard was not open and obvious
- Our client had no reason to anticipate the danger

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Immediate Injuries

As a direct and proximate result of the fall, our client sustained:

Primary Diagnoses:
- [Injury 1]
- [Injury 2]
- [Injury 3]

B. Medical Treatment

Emergency Treatment:
[Date and details of emergency care]

Subsequent Treatment:
[Details of follow-up care, specialists, therapy, etc.]

C. Current Status and Prognosis

[Current condition and future treatment needs]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Past Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Non-Economic Damages

Massachusetts has no cap on non-economic damages in personal injury cases. Our client has experienced:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- [Other non-economic damages]

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:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring on [Expiration Date].

Should you fail to respond within the specified time or fail to make a reasonable offer, we will file suit in the appropriate Massachusetts court.

VIII. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Complete medical records from all treating providers
• Itemized medical bills
• Photographs of the incident location
• Photographs of injuries
• Incident report (if obtained)
• Employment records and wage verification
• Weather records (if applicable)
• [Other supporting documentation]

IX. CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes clear liability on the part of your insured. Under Massachusetts law, your insured had a duty of reasonable care, which was breached, causing our client's injuries.

[If snow/ice case:] The Papadopoulos decision makes clear that property owners can no longer hide behind the natural accumulation defense. Your insured's failure to reasonably address the snow and ice hazard was negligent.

We urge you to resolve this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MASSACHUSETTS-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Papadopoulos (2010): Abolished the natural accumulation rule for snow and ice. Property owners must now act reasonably to remove or remediate snow/ice.

• Mounsey v. Ellard (1973): Unified duty of reasonable care owed to all lawful visitors, regardless of classification.

• Comparative Negligence: Modified (51% bar) - plaintiff cannot recover if more than 50% at fault.

• Charitable Immunity: Limited immunity exists for charitable organizations under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, Section 85K (cap of $100,000 in most cases).

• Offer of Judgment: Mass. R. Civ. P. 68 - consider strategic timing of settlement offers.

• Prejudgment Interest: 12% per annum from date of breach or demand. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, Section 6C.

• Venue: Generally where the cause of action arose or where defendant resides.