DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL
STATE OF MICHIGAN
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Michigan ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Michigan
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], [County] County, Michigan. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.
I. MICHIGAN-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Statute of Limitations
Under Michigan Compiled Laws Section 600.5805(2), 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. Michigan Comparative Negligence
Michigan follows modified comparative negligence under Mich. Comp. Laws Section 600.2959. A plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault, but a plaintiff who is more than 50% at fault is barred from recovery.
Our client was exercising all reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident.
C. Michigan Premises Liability Standards
Michigan retains the traditional common law classifications of entrants:
1. Invitees:
An invitee is owed the highest duty of care. The property owner must:
- Maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- Inspect the premises to discover latent dangers
- Make dangerous conditions safe or warn the invitee of them
Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591, 614 N.W.2d 88 (2000).
2. Licensees:
A licensee is owed a lesser duty—the owner must warn of known dangers that the licensee is unlikely to discover.
3. Trespassers:
A trespasser is owed the minimal duty to refrain from willful and wanton misconduct.
Our client was a business invitee, entitled to the highest duty of care.
D. Michigan's "Open and Obvious" Danger Doctrine
Critical Michigan Doctrine: Under Michigan law, a premises owner generally has no duty to protect invitees from "open and obvious" dangers because such dangers serve their own warning. Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich. 512, 629 N.W.2d 384 (2001).
However, the open and obvious doctrine does NOT apply when:
-
Special Aspects Exception: The condition poses an unreasonably dangerous risk of severe harm even if the invitee knows of it (e.g., the condition is effectively unavoidable or involves an extremely high risk of severe harm). Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich. 512, 629 N.W.2d 384 (2001).
-
The danger is not actually open and obvious: The doctrine only applies if the danger would be apparent to a reasonable person upon casual inspection. Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450, 821 N.W.2d 88 (2012).
Here, the hazardous condition was NOT open and obvious because: [Explain why - e.g., hidden by displays, lighting was inadequate, clear liquid on similar-colored floor, view was obstructed, etc.]
E. Michigan Snow and Ice Liability
Open and Obvious Doctrine Applies to Snow/Ice:
Michigan courts have generally held that the hazards of ice and snow are open and obvious and property owners have no duty to remove them. Janson v. Sajewski Funeral Home, Inc., 210 Mich. App. 160, 532 N.W.2d 879 (1995).
Exceptions:
1. Special Aspects: If the snow/ice condition is effectively unavoidable or poses an unreasonably high risk of severe harm. Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich. 512, 629 N.W.2d 384 (2001).
2. Contractual Duty: If the property owner assumed a duty to remove snow/ice by contract.
3. Black Ice/Hidden Hazard: If the ice was not visible or apparent upon reasonable inspection. Mann v. Shusteric Enters., Inc., 470 Mich. 320, 683 N.W.2d 573 (2004) (black ice may not be open and obvious).
[If snow/ice case:] The hazard in this case was not open and obvious because [explain - e.g., black ice not visible, area appeared clear, etc.] OR the special aspects exception applies because [explain unavoidability or extreme danger].
F. Notice Requirements for Government Claims
Claims against Michigan governmental entities require compliance with the Governmental Tort Liability Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Section 691.1401 et seq. Notice must be provided within 120 days of the injury. Mich. Comp. Laws Section 691.1404.
[If applicable:] Proper notice was provided on [Date].
II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this incident, including:
- All surveillance video footage from the date of incident
- Surveillance footage from 48 hours before and after the incident
- Incident/accident reports
- Maintenance logs and repair records
- Inspection records and checklists
- Cleaning schedules and logs
- Weather records from the date of incident
- Snow removal logs and contracts
- Prior complaints and prior incidents
- Photographs of the incident location
Michigan courts may impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence, including adverse inference instructions. Brenner v. Kolk, 226 Mich. App. 149, 573 N.W.2d 65 (1997).
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Premises
The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type] in [City], [County] County, Michigan. 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 condition existed on the premises: [Describe hazard in detail]
[CUSTOMIZE BASED ON TYPE OF HAZARD:]
Wet/Slippery Floor: A liquid substance was present on the floor creating a slippery surface. The hazard was not open and obvious because [explain].
Ice/Snow: Ice and/or snow created a slipping hazard. This hazard was not open and obvious because [explain - e.g., black ice, hidden beneath snow, area appeared safe] OR the special aspects exception applies because [explain].
Uneven Surface/Tripping Hazard: A [defect] created a tripping hazard that was not readily observable.
C. The Incident
On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity] when [he/she] [describe the fall]:
[Detailed narrative]
IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Duty of Care
As a business invitee, our client was owed the highest duty of care under Michigan law. Your insured was required to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of or correct dangerous conditions. Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 462 Mich. 591, 614 N.W.2d 88 (2000).
B. The Condition Was NOT Open and Obvious
The "open and obvious" doctrine does not bar our client's claim because:
-
The hazard was not apparent upon casual inspection:
- [Describe why the hazard was hidden or not visible]
- A reasonable person exercising ordinary care would not have observed the danger -
[If applicable] Special Aspects Exception Applies:
- The condition was effectively unavoidable, OR
- The condition posed an unreasonably high risk of severe harm
Hoffner v. Lanctoe, 492 Mich. 450, 821 N.W.2d 88 (2012).
C. Breach of Duty
Your insured breached its duty by:
-
Failure to Discover the Hazard:
Your insured failed to conduct reasonable inspections that would have revealed the dangerous condition. -
Failure to Correct or Warn:
Your insured failed to remedy the hazardous condition or provide adequate warnings. -
Actual or Constructive Notice:
Your insured [created the condition / had actual knowledge of the condition / had constructive knowledge based on the duration the condition existed].
D. Causation
The dangerous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and injuries.
V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
A. Immediate Injuries
Primary Diagnoses:
- [Injury 1]
- [Injury 2]
- [Injury 3]
B. Medical Treatment
Emergency Treatment:
[Details]
Subsequent Treatment:
[Details]
C. Current Status and Prognosis
[Current condition and prognosis]
VI. DAMAGES
A. Past Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service Dates | Amount Billed |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider] | [Date] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
B. Future Medical Expenses
| Future Treatment | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| [Treatment] | $[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:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Loss of enjoyment of life
Note: Michigan has caps on non-economic damages in certain tort cases.
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 | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the liability of your insured, the severity of our client's injuries, and the 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].
VIII. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED
- Complete medical records and bills
- Photographs of the incident location
- Photographs of injuries
- Incident report (if obtained)
- Employment records and wage verification
- Weather records (if applicable)
IX. CONCLUSION
The evidence establishes clear liability. The hazardous condition was not open and obvious, and your insured failed to maintain safe premises. We urge prompt resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
State Bar of Michigan No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: As noted above
cc: [Client Name]
File
MICHIGAN-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
-
Open and Obvious Doctrine: Major defense in Michigan premises cases. Document thoroughly why the hazard was NOT open and obvious or why special aspects exception applies.
-
Black Ice: Courts have recognized that black ice may not be open and obvious. Mann v. Shusteric Enters., Inc., 470 Mich. 320 (2004).
-
Comparative Negligence: Modified (51% bar). Plaintiff barred if more than 50% at fault.
-
Case Evaluation: Michigan has mandatory case evaluation (MCR 2.403). Non-acceptance penalties apply.
-
Prejudgment Interest: Available from date complaint filed. Mich. Comp. Laws Section 600.6013.
-
Governmental Immunity: Strict requirements under Governmental Tort Liability Act. 120-day notice requirement.
-
Venue: County where defendant resides or where cause of action arose.