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
Under Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article Section 5-101, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims arising from premises liability 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. CRITICAL: Maryland's Contributory Negligence Rule
Maryland is one of only four jurisdictions that follows the doctrine of pure contributory negligence. Under this rule, a plaintiff who is even 1% at fault for their injuries is completely barred from recovery. Harrison v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 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):
Under Maryland law, a property owner owes invitees the highest duty of care: to use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe and to protect the invitee from injury caused by an unreasonable risk that the invitee would not be expected to discover. Tennant v. Shoppers Food Warehouse Md. Corp., 115 Md. App. 381, 693 A.2d 370 (1997).
2. Duty to Inspect:
Property owners must conduct reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions. Maans v. Giant of Md., LLC, 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, entitled to the highest duty of care.
D. Maryland Snow and Ice Liability Rules
Natural Accumulation Rule (Limited Application):
Maryland follows a modified natural accumulation doctrine. Property owners generally have no duty to remove naturally accumulating snow and ice. However, this immunity does not apply when:
- The owner's actions aggravate the natural condition or create an unnatural accumulation. Deering Woods Condo. Ass'n v. Spoon, 377 Md. 250, 833 A.2d 17 (2003).
- The owner voluntarily undertakes snow removal and performs it negligently. Bramble v. Thompson, 264 Md. 518, 287 A.2d 265 (1972).
- A contractual or statutory duty to remove snow exists.
[If applicable:] The hazardous condition in this case [was an unnatural accumulation created by / was aggravated by / resulted from negligent snow removal by] your insured.
E. Maryland Damage Caps
Under Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article Section 11-108, non-economic damages in personal injury cases are capped. For claims arising in [Year], the cap is $[Current Cap Amount]. This cap adjusts annually.
Note: Economic damages (medical expenses, lost wages) are not subject to caps.
F. Notice Requirements for Government Claims
[If claim involves government entity:]
Claims against Maryland state agencies require filing notice with the State Treasurer within one year. Md. Code, State Gov't Section 12-106. Claims against local governments must comply with the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act, Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 5-304.
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 recognizes claims for spoliation of evidence. Miller v. Montgomery Cty., 64 Md. App. 202, 494 A.2d 761 (1985). Failure to preserve evidence may result in adverse inference instructions and sanctions.
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]
Under Maryland law, a plaintiff is not contributorily negligent simply because they did not look down at their feet while walking. Casper v. Chas. F. Smith & Son, Inc., 316 Md. 573, 560 A.2d 1130 (1989).
IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Duty of Care
As a business invitee, our client was owed the highest duty of care under Maryland law. Your insured was required to:
- Use reasonable and ordinary care to keep the premises safe
- Protect our client from injury caused by unreasonable risks
- Conduct reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions
- 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. Mode of Operation (If Applicable):
[For self-service retail establishments:]
Under the mode of operation approach recognized in Maans v. Giant of Md., LLC, self-service establishments that create foreseeable risks through their mode of operation may be deemed to have constructive notice of hazards that are a foreseeable consequence of that mode of operation.
C. The Condition Was Not "Open and Obvious"
Maryland law does not automatically relieve a landowner of liability simply because a condition might be characterized as "open and obvious." The question is whether the invitee, exercising reasonable care, would have observed the condition. Casper v. Chas. F. Smith & Son, Inc., 316 Md. 573, 560 A.2d 1130 (1989).
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:
- Our client exercised all reasonable care for their own safety
- The hazard was not open and obvious
- Our client had no duty to anticipate the dangerous condition
- Maryland does not require pedestrians to constantly look at their feet. Casper v. Chas. F. Smith & Son, Inc., 316 Md. 573, 560 A.2d 1130 (1989)
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
| Provider | Service Dates | Amount Billed |
|---|---|---|
| [Ambulance Service] | [Date] | $[Amount] |
| [Hospital] | [Date] | $[Amount] |
| [Specialists] | [Dates] | $[Amount] |
| [Physical Therapy] | [Dates] | $[Amount] |
| [Other Providers] | [Dates] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
B. Future Medical Expenses
| Future Treatment | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| [Future treatment needs] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL FUTURE MEDICAL | $[Total] |
C. Lost Wages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
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
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering (subject to cap) | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL DEMAND | $[Grand Total] |
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 evidence in this case establishes clear liability on the part of your insured. Our client, who was completely free from any contributory negligence, was seriously injured due to your insured's failure to maintain safe premises.
Given Maryland's contributory negligence rule, the complete absence of fault on our client's part makes this case particularly strong for the plaintiff. We urge you to 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: Maryland is one of only four U.S. jurisdictions (with Alabama, North Carolina, and Virginia/D.C.) that follows pure contributory negligence. Even 1% fault bars recovery entirely.
-
Last Clear Chance Doctrine: Maryland recognizes the last clear chance doctrine, which may allow recovery even if the plaintiff was contributorily negligent if the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the harm. Burdette v. Rockville Crane Rental, Inc., 130 Md. App. 193, 745 A.2d 457 (2000).
-
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.
-
Prejudgment Interest: Available from date of filing under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 11-107.
-
Venue: May file in county where cause of action arose or where defendant resides.