Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Maryland

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF MARYLAND

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

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

I. MARYLAND-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 5-101 generally requires a civil action to be filed within three years after the claim accrues, unless another Code provision supplies a different period. Accrual and tolling can be fact-sensitive, and claims involving government defendants have separate presentment requirements. Counsel should calculate the deadline from the complete facts rather than assume that it runs automatically from the incident date.

B. CRITICAL: Maryland's Contributory Negligence Rule

Maryland retains contributory negligence. A claimant's negligence bars recovery when it is a proximate cause of the injury. Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 69 A.3d 1149 (2013); Harrison v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442, 456 A.2d 894 (1983).

Our client bears absolutely no fault for this incident. As demonstrated below, our client exercised all reasonable care for their own safety, and the hazardous condition was not open and obvious.

C. Maryland Premises Liability Standards

Maryland law imposes different duties of care based on the entrant's status on the property:

1. Invitees (Business Visitors):
The possessor must use reasonable care to see that portions of the property an invitee may be expected to use are safe. Six Flags America, L.P. v. Gonzalez-Perdomo, 248 Md. App. 569, 241 A.3d 1146 (2020); Tennant v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Maryland Corp., 115 Md. App. 381, 693 A.2d 370 (1997).

2. Reasonable Care and Inspection Evidence:
The adequacy and timing of inspections may bear on reasonable care, but an invitee must still prove the defendant created the condition or had actual or constructive knowledge of it in sufficient time to correct it or warn. Maans v. Giant of Maryland, L.L.C., 161 Md. App. 620, 871 A.2d 627 (2005).

3. Actual or Constructive Notice:
A property owner is liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition if the owner: (1) created the condition; (2) had actual knowledge of the condition; or (3) had constructive knowledge of the condition (the condition existed for a sufficient length of time that it should have been discovered). Rehn v. Westfield Am., 153 Md. App. 586, 837 A.2d 981 (2003).

Our client was a business invitee on the premises and was owed the duty described above.

D. Maryland Snow and Ice Liability Rules

For walkways on private premises intended for invitee use, Maryland applies ordinary premises-liability principles to unreasonable risks from naturally occurring snow or ice, including actual or constructive notice. Deering Woods Condominium Ass'n v. Spoon, 377 Md. 250, 833 A.2d 17 (2003). A different rule generally applies to an occupant's duty to pedestrians for natural accumulations on an abutting public sidewalk; liability may arise if negligent clearing adds a new hazard. The location, control, notice, lease terms, and any statute or ordinance must be analyzed before asserting a snow-removal duty.

E. Maryland Damage Caps

Under Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 11-108, noneconomic damages are limited by a base amount that increases by $15,000 each October 1. The general limit is $965,000 for causes of action arising from October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2026, and $980,000 for causes arising from October 1, 2026 through September 30, 2027. In a personal-injury action, the limit applies to each direct victim and all persons claiming through that victim. Confirm the amount for the actual accrual period.

Note: Economic damages (medical expenses, lost wages) are not subject to caps.

F. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

[If claim involves government entity:]
Under the Maryland Tort Claims Act, a claimant generally must submit a written claim to the State Treasurer or the Treasurer's designee within one year after the injury, await final denial, and file suit within three years after accrual. The claim must include the information required by State Government §§ 12-106 and 12-107. For a local government or employee, Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 5-304 generally requires written notice within one year after injury stating the time, place, and cause and sent to the recipient specified for that local government. Both statutes contain limited actual-notice and good-cause provisions; do not assume they excuse noncompliance.

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

Maryland does not recognize an independent tort for spoliation. Depending on the facts, destruction or alteration of relevant evidence may support an evidentiary inference or other proportionate remedy, but the inference does not replace proof of an element of the claim. Goin v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp., 166 Md. App. 611, 890 A.2d 894 (2006); Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 469 Md. 704, 231 A.3d 909 (2020).

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type] in [City], [County] County, Maryland. At all relevant times, [Property Owner Name] owned, operated, possessed, maintained, 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 - select applicable:]

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 to alert customers to this hazard.

Uneven Walking Surface: A raised or uneven section of [flooring / sidewalk / parking lot] created a tripping hazard. The elevation change was not marked, repaired, or remediated.

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

Ice/Snow Accumulation: [An unnatural accumulation of / Negligently cleared] snow and/or ice had accumulated at [location], creating a hazardous condition.

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe what client was doing] when [describe the fall]:

[Detailed narrative of the incident]

D. Our Client's Freedom from Contributory Negligence

CRITICAL FOR MARYLAND CLAIMS: Our client exercised reasonable care at all times:

• Our client was walking in the normal and expected manner
• Our client's attention was appropriately directed [describe]
• The hazardous condition was NOT open and obvious because [explain why - e.g., clear liquid blended with floor, poor lighting, obstruction of view, distraction by displays, etc.]
• Our client had no prior knowledge of or reason to anticipate the dangerous condition
• There were no warnings, signs, or barriers alerting our client to the hazard
• Our client was wearing appropriate footwear for the conditions
• [Additional facts demonstrating client's due care]

Whether the claimant exercised reasonable care depends on the complete circumstances. Avoid a categorical claim that a pedestrian either must constantly look down or can never be negligent for failing to observe the walking surface.

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

As a business invitee, our client was owed reasonable care under Maryland law. The evidence should establish that your insured was required to:

1. Use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe
2. Protect our client from injury caused by unreasonable risks
3. Use reasonable inspection practices appropriate to foreseeable conditions
4. Warn of or correct known dangerous conditions

Tennant v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Md. Corp., 115 Md. App. 381, 693 A.2d 370 (1997).

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached its duty of care by:

1. Actual Knowledge:
[If evidence of actual knowledge exists:]
Your insured had actual knowledge of the hazardous condition, as evidenced by:

• [Prior complaints about the condition]
• [Employee awareness]
• [Condition created by employees]
• [Prior incidents at the same location]

2. Constructive Knowledge:
Even absent actual knowledge, your insured had constructive notice. The hazardous condition existed for a sufficient period that, in the exercise of ordinary care, it should have been discovered. Maans v. Giant of Md., LLC, 161 Md. App. 620, 871 A.2d 627 (2005).

Evidence of constructive notice includes:

• [Nature/appearance of the condition suggesting extended duration]
• [Lack of evidence of recent inspections]
• [Inadequate inspection procedures]

3. Defendant-Created Condition (If Supported):
If admissible evidence shows that the defendant or its employee created the specific dangerous condition, identify that evidence here. Maryland has rejected the proposed mode-of-operation rule that would dispense with proof of actual or constructive notice merely because a business method creates recurring risks. Maans v. Giant of Maryland, L.L.C., 161 Md. App. 620, 871 A.2d 627 (2005); Zilichikhis v. Montgomery County, 223 Md. App. 158, 115 A.3d 685 (2015).

C. The Condition Was Not "Open and Obvious"

Maryland generally imposes no duty to warn an invitee of an open, obvious, and present danger. Visibility alone does not necessarily establish that the danger itself was obvious; the analysis uses an objective reasonable-invitee standard and may present a fact question. Six Flags America, L.P. v. Gonzalez-Perdomo, 248 Md. App. 569, 241 A.3d 1146 (2020).

Here, the condition was not open and obvious because:

• [Explain why the hazard was not reasonably observable]

D. Causation

The dangerous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries. But for your insured's negligence, our client would not have been injured.

E. Rejection of Contributory Negligence Defense

We anticipate your insured may attempt to assert contributory negligence. This defense fails:

1. Our client exercised all reasonable care for their own safety
2. The hazard was not open and obvious
3. The available route, lighting, warnings, distractions, and appearance of the condition did not give a reasonable invitee notice of the danger
4. The evidence supports reasonable care under the circumstances

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Immediate 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. Emergency Treatment

On [Date of Incident], our client was [transported to / treated at] [Hospital Name], where [he/she] was evaluated and treated for the above injuries.

C. Subsequent Treatment

[Describe all subsequent medical treatment, including specialists, physical therapy, surgeries, etc.]

D. Current Status and Prognosis

[Describe current condition and prognosis]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Past Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Non-Economic Damages

Our client has experienced significant:

• Physical pain and suffering
• Emotional distress
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• [Other non-economic damages]

Note: Non-economic damages are subject to Maryland's statutory cap of $[Current Cap Amount] for claims arising in [Year].

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear liability of your insured, the absence of any contributory negligence by our client, 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 Circuit Court for [County] County, Maryland.

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
• [Other supporting documentation]

IX. CONCLUSION

The enclosed evidence supports liability on the part of your insured and supports the position that our client exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. Customize this conclusion to the evidence actually available.

We urge you to evaluate the documented condition, notice evidence, causation, and damages and resolve this matter promptly.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Maryland Bar Number: [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MARYLAND-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Contributory Negligence: Claimant negligence bars recovery when it is a proximate cause of the injury. Develop the record on what the claimant knew, saw, and reasonably did.

• Last Clear Chance Doctrine: Do not plead this doctrine as a general escape from contributory negligence. It requires a fact-specific, sequential opportunity for the defendant to avoid the consequences of the claimant's negligence.

• Assumption of Risk: Distinct from contributory negligence. Requires proof that plaintiff knew of and voluntarily encountered the risk.

• Non-Economic Damage Caps: Caps increase annually. Verify current cap at time of filing.

• Interest: Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 11-107 sets postjudgment interest, generally at 10% per year. It does not itself create automatic prejudgment interest from the filing date for an unliquidated personal-injury demand.

• Venue: Confirm the proper venue under the defendant-specific provisions of Courts and Judicial Proceedings Title 6 before filing.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Maryland General Assembly, 2026 Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/Statute_Web/gcj/gcj.pdf
• Maryland General Assembly, 2026 State Government Article: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/Statute_Web/gsg/gsg.pdf
• Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia (official opinion): https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2013/9a12.pdf
• Maans v. Giant of Maryland, L.L.C. (official opinion): https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2005/161s04.pdf
• Zilichikhis v. Montgomery County (official opinion): https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2015/0388s14.pdf
• Deering Woods Condominium Ass'n v. Spoon (official opinion): https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2003/123a02.pdf
• Goin v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Corp. (official opinion): https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2006/923s04.pdf
• Six Flags America, L.P. v. Gonzalez-Perdomo (official opinion): https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2020/1620s19.pdf
• Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange (official opinion): https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2020/40a19.pdf