Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Maine

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. § 752, civil actions generally must be commenced within six (6) years after the cause of action accrues, unless another statute supplies a different period. Government claims and other specialized claims can carry shorter deadlines. This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date].

B. Maine Premises Liability Duty Standards

Under Poulin v. Colby College, 402 A.2d 846, 851 (Me. 1979), an owner or occupier owes the same duty of reasonable care in all the circumstances to persons lawfully on the land. The rule does not make the owner or occupier an insurer of lawful visitors' safety.

A premises claim ordinarily requires proof that the defendant possessed or controlled the location associated with the alleged defect. Quadrino v. Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co., 588 A.2d 303, 304-05 (Me. 1991).

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.

C. Knowledge Requirement Under Maine Law

For a foreign-substance condition, liability may rest on proof that the business caused the substance to be present, had actual knowledge of it, knew of a recurrent hazardous condition, or allowed the substance to remain long enough that it should have known of it. Dumont v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848-49 (Me. 1995). A recurrent-condition theory does not impose strict liability; the question remains whether the owner took reasonably necessary precautions.

D. Modified Comparative Fault

Maine follows modified comparative fault under 14 M.R.S. § 156. Equal or greater claimant fault bars recovery. If claimant fault is less, the factfinder reduces damages by the dollars and cents it considers just and equitable in view of the claimant's share of responsibility; the statute does not require a mechanical percentage reduction.

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

E. Recurrent Conditions in Self-Service Settings

Maine has declined to adopt a rule that automatically imputes customers' conduct to a store merely because the store uses self-service operations. A claimant may instead rely on evidence that the owner knew of a foreseeable recurrent hazardous condition and failed to respond reasonably. Dumont, 664 A.2d at 848-49.

[If supported by evidence:] Your insured knew that [describe recurrent condition] repeatedly occurred near [display/area] and failed to take reasonable precautions despite that knowledge.

F. Snow and Ice Liability in Maine

Maine applies reasonable-care principles to snow and ice. A business owner anticipating significant invitee traffic during a winter storm may have a duty to respond reasonably to the foreseeable danger while the storm continues; Maine does not apply a categorical rule permitting every business to wait until the storm ends. Budzko v. One City Center Associates Limited Partnership, 2001 ME 37, ¶¶ 11-16, 767 A.2d 310.

[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

Knowledge or obviousness does not necessarily bar recovery when the owner should foresee that a lawful visitor may reasonably encounter the condition despite knowing of it. Poulin, 402 A.2d at 851-52. The claimant's conduct and the defendant's response remain part of the circumstances considered under negligence and comparative-fault principles.

[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

Please take reasonable steps to preserve potentially relevant 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

This request is intended to identify evidence that may be relevant if the claim proceeds to 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.

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. The circumstances supporting that position include:

• 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 liability evidence described above, the severity of our client's injuries, and the 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. POLICY-LIMITS COMMUNICATION

[For policy limits or excess exposure cases:]

[If supported by the available records:] Our client's claimed damages may exceed available policy limits. Please evaluate the demand under the policy and applicable Maine law and communicate it to the insured as appropriate. This third-party demand does not invoke the first-party statutory action in 24-A M.R.S. § 2436-A, which by its terms concerns actions against a person's own insurer.

IX. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS GOVERNMENT ENTITY]

If this claim involves a governmental entity or employee, identify the exact defendant and waiver before proceeding. Under 14 M.R.S. § 8107, written notice generally must be filed within 365 days after accrual, subject to the statute's good-cause, minority, recipient, and substantial-compliance provisions. State claims require notice to the responsible state entity and the Attorney General; political-subdivision claims use the recipient specified through Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 4. A permitted action generally must be commenced within two years after accrual under § 8110. Section 8105 limits all claims arising from one occurrence to $400,000, including costs and prejudgment interest, and bars punitive or exemplary damages against a governmental entity. Immunity and waiver remain claim-specific.

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 described above supports our client's position that your insured failed to exercise reasonable care and that the condition caused the claimed injuries. 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 General Limitation: Under 14 M.R.S. § 752, civil actions generally must be commenced within six years after accrual unless another statute provides otherwise.

• Unified Duty Standard: Under Poulin v. Colby College, Maine applies reasonable care in all the circumstances to lawful visitors and does not make land possessors insurers of safety.

• Modified Comparative Fault: Equal or greater claimant fault bars recovery; lesser fault produces the just-and-equitable dollar reduction specified by 14 M.R.S. § 156.

• Joint and Several Liability: Under 14 M.R.S. § 156, each defendant in a multiparty-defendant case remains jointly and severally liable to the claimant for recoverable damages regardless of that defendant's individual fault percentage, subject to special interrogatories and contribution rights.

• Winter Conditions: Budzko rejects a categorical storm-in-progress no-duty rule for businesses anticipating significant invitee traffic; the response required remains circumstance-specific.

• Maine Tort Claims Act: Section 8107 generally requires notice within 365 days after accrual; § 8110 generally requires suit within two years after accrual; § 8105 imposes a $400,000 per-occurrence limit and bars punitive damages against governmental entities.

• Venue: Under 14 M.R.S. § 501, a personal or transitory action generally may be brought in a county where a plaintiff or defendant lives when the parties live in Maine, or in the county where the cause of action took place; if no plaintiff lives in Maine, use a county where a defendant lives or where the cause occurred.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 14 M.R.S. § 752 — https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec752.html
• 14 M.R.S. § 156 — https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec156.html
• 14 M.R.S. §§ 8105, 8107, 8110 — https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec8105.html; https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec8107.html; https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec8110.html
• 14 M.R.S. § 501 — https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/14/title14sec501.html
• 24-A M.R.S. § 2436-A — https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/24-A/title24-Asec2436-A.html
• Poulin v. Colby College, 402 A.2d 846 (Me. 1979)
• Quadrino v. Bar Harbor Banking & Trust Co., 588 A.2d 303 (Me. 1991)
• Dumont v. Shaw's Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846 (Me. 1995)
• Budzko v. One City Center Associates Limited Partnership, 2001 ME 37, 767 A.2d 310