DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF MAINE

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

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

I. MAINE-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under 14 M.R.S. Section 752, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including premises liability, is six (6) years from the date of injury. While Maine has one of the longest limitation periods in the nation, we intend to resolve this matter promptly. This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date].

B. Maine Premises Liability Duty Standards

Maine has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts approach to premises liability and has abolished the traditional common law distinctions between invitees and licensees. Under Poulin v. Colby College, 402 A.2d 846 (Me. 1979), Maine applies a single duty of reasonable care to all lawful visitors.

A possessor of land owes a duty to use reasonable care to all persons lawfully on the premises. The traditional classifications (invitee, licensee) remain relevant only as factors in determining what constitutes reasonable care under the circumstances.

Our client was a lawful visitor (business invitee) on your insured's premises. Your insured owed our client the duty to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances.

Under Quadrino v. Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co., 588 A.2d 303 (Me. 1991), and its progeny, the elements of a premises liability claim in Maine are:

1. The defendant owed a duty of reasonable care to the plaintiff;
2. The defendant breached that duty;
3. The breach was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries;
4. The plaintiff suffered damages.

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Maine Law

Although Maine applies a general reasonable care standard, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant knew or should have known of the dangerous condition. Beal v. Meskhi, 188 A.3d 869 (Me. 2018).

Actual Knowledge: Established when the defendant or its employees knew of the hazard prior to the incident.

Constructive Knowledge: Established when:
- The condition existed for such a length of time that it should have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable care; OR
- The defendant created the dangerous condition.

D. Modified Comparative Fault

Maine follows a modified comparative fault rule with a 50% bar. Under 14 M.R.S. Section 156, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. However, if the plaintiff's fault is equal to or greater than the combined fault of all defendants, the plaintiff is completely barred from recovery.

Our client exercised reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident.

E. Mode of Operation Doctrine in Maine

While Maine has not formally adopted the "mode of operation" doctrine by name, Maine courts apply the general duty of reasonable care, which takes into account the nature of the defendant's business operations. Self-service establishments are held to a standard of care that reflects the foreseeable risks of their operations.

See Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co., 76 Me. 100 (1884) (establishing that the nature of the activity is relevant to the duty of care).

Your insured's mode of operation made the hazard foreseeable and is relevant to determining whether reasonable care was exercised.

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Maine

Maine applies a general negligence standard to snow and ice cases. Unlike some jurisdictions, Maine does not follow a strict "natural accumulation" rule. Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care with respect to snow and ice hazards.

Auclair v. Bancroft & Martin Rolling Mills Co., 566 A.2d 1091 (Me. 1989).

Relevant factors include:
1. The foreseeability of harm from the accumulation;
2. The reasonableness of the defendant's response to weather conditions;
3. The practicality of snow and ice removal under the circumstances;
4. Custom and practice in the community.

Maine recognizes that perfect snow and ice removal is not required, but property owners must act reasonably under the circumstances.

[If applicable:] The ice/snow condition in this case presented an unreasonable risk of harm that your insured failed to address despite having adequate time and opportunity to do so.

G. Open and Obvious Doctrine

Under Maine law, the open and obvious nature of a condition is a factor in the negligence analysis but does not automatically bar recovery. The question is whether the defendant exercised reasonable care under all the circumstances and whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent.

Packard v. Central Maine Power Co., 477 A.2d 264 (Me. 1984).

Even if a condition is open and obvious, the defendant may still be liable if a reasonable person would have taken action to protect against it.

[If applicable:] The condition was not open and obvious because [explain], or despite any observable characteristics, your insured should have taken action to protect invitees.

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
• All communications regarding the incident
• Insurance policies applicable to this claim

Maine courts may impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Failure to preserve this evidence will be addressed in litigation.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], [County] County, Maine, 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.

[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, ice accumulation, debris, etc.]

[Describe condition characteristics that establish notice - e.g., dirty appearance, tracked footprints, size of spill, duration based on witness testimony, weather conditions, 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 a sufficient length of time such that it should have been discovered through reasonable care
- [Describe evidence of duration - appearance, witness testimony, etc.]
- [Describe inadequate inspection procedures]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

Under Poulin v. Colby College, 402 A.2d 846 (Me. 1979), your insured owed our client the duty to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances. This includes the duty to discover and remedy dangerous conditions, or to warn of such conditions.

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached this duty by failing to exercise reasonable care. Specifically, your insured:

1. Failed to discover the hazardous condition through reasonable inspection;
2. Failed to remediate the hazardous condition;
3. Failed to warn of the hazardous condition;
4. Failed to implement adequate inspection and maintenance procedures;
5. [Additional breaches specific to the case]

C. Causation

The hazardous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries. But for your insured's failure to exercise reasonable care, our client would not have fallen and would not have sustained the injuries detailed herein.

D. Comparative Fault - Rebutted

Our client exercised reasonable care for [his/her] own safety. Under Maine law, an invitee is entitled to expect that the premises are reasonably safe. 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. Pain and Suffering / Non-Economic Damages

Our client has experienced significant pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life:

• Physical pain from injuries sustained
• Emotional distress, anxiety, and depression
• Loss of enjoyment of life and recreational activities
• Interference with family relationships and activities
• Permanent impairment and scarring
• [Other non-economic 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].

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 [County] Superior Court, State of Maine, 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. Maine recognizes claims for insurer bad faith under both common law and statutory provisions. 24-A M.R.S. Section 2436-A.

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 the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S. Section 8101 et seq., governs such claims. Written notice must be provided within 180 days of the occurrence causing the injury. 14 M.R.S. Section 8107. Various immunities and liability limits 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. Our client was a lawful visitor who was injured due to your insured's failure to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the premises. The hazardous condition was known or should have been discovered through reasonable care. Our client exercised reasonable care and could not have avoided the hazard.

A jury in [County] County, Maine would view this case favorably for our client. We urge you to give this matter prompt attention.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MAINE-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Six-Year Statute of Limitations: Maine has one of the longest limitation periods in the country. 14 M.R.S. Section 752.

• Unified Duty Standard: Under Poulin v. Colby College, Maine applies a single duty of reasonable care to all lawful visitors. Traditional classifications remain relevant as factors.

• Modified Comparative Fault: Under 14 M.R.S. Section 156, plaintiff is barred from recovery if 50% or more at fault.

• Joint and Several Liability: Maine has modified joint and several liability. Under 14 M.R.S. Section 156, defendants are generally severally liable only for their percentage of fault, with exceptions for intentional torts and vicarious liability.

• No Natural Accumulation Rule: Maine applies general negligence principles to snow/ice cases. Property owners must act reasonably under the circumstances.

• Punitive Damages: Punitive damages are generally not available in Maine negligence cases except in limited circumstances (e.g., intentional misconduct).

• Maine Tort Claims Act: Claims against government entities must comply with 14 M.R.S. Section 8101 et seq. 180-day notice requirement. Liability capped at $400,000 per occurrence.

• Venue: M.R. Civ. P. 3. Generally where defendant resides or where cause of action arose.

• Mandatory ADR: Some Maine courts require mediation or other ADR before trial. Check local rules.