Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Michigan

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

Michigan Compiled Laws §§ 600.5805(1)-(2) generally require an action for personal injury or property damage to be commenced within three years after the claim first accrues. Section 600.5827 supplies the general accrual rule when no more specific section applies. Counsel should calculate accrual, tolling, and any claim-specific notice period from the complete facts rather than insert an automatic incident-date deadline.

B. Michigan Comparative Negligence

Under Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.2957 and 600.2959, the trier of fact allocates fault and the court reduces damages by the injured person's percentage of comparative fault. If that percentage exceeds the aggregate fault of all other persons, noneconomic damages are barred, but economic damages remain recoverable after the percentage reduction.

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:
A land possessor owes invitees a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect them from an unreasonable risk of harm caused by a dangerous condition of the land. Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., 512 Mich. 95, 1 N.W.3d 44 (2023). Reasonable inspection, repair, and warning measures depend on the circumstances.

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 and was owed the reasonable-care duty stated above.

D. Michigan's "Open and Obvious" Danger Doctrine

In 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled Lugo to the extent it treated openness and obviousness as eliminating the land possessor's duty. The issue now bears on breach and comparative fault, generally for the factfinder. The former narrow “special aspects” test is no longer controlling; the question is whether the possessor should have anticipated harm despite the condition's obviousness. Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., 512 Mich. 95, 1 N.W.3d 44 (2023).

Address visibility, lighting, warnings, available routes, the reason for encountering the condition, and whether the possessor should have anticipated the harm.

E. Michigan Snow and Ice Liability

Snow and ice are analyzed under the same current framework. Indeed, Kandil-Elsayed itself involved a snow-and-ice fall and held that the possessor owed the invitee a reasonable-care duty. Whether the condition was open and obvious, whether the possessor should have anticipated harm, whether reasonable precautions were taken, and the claimant's comparative fault are separate factual inquiries. Do not rely on the overruled Lugo “special aspects” gateway.

F. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

Government claims require defendant- and exception-specific analysis. Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1404's 120-day notice applies to injuries caused by a defective highway and requires the exact location and nature of the defect, the injury, and known witnesses; it is not a universal deadline for every government tort claim. A claim against the State ordinarily implicates § 600.6431, including a six-month filing period for personal-injury or property-damage claims. Identify the governmental entity, statutory immunity exception, forum, recipient, contents, and deadline before asserting compliance.

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. Describe visibility, lighting, warnings, available routes, maintenance activity, and why the possessor should have anticipated harm despite any obviousness.

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 reasonable care to protect against unreasonable risks from dangerous conditions of the land. Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc., 512 Mich. 95, 1 N.W.3d 44 (2023).

B. Openness, Obviousness, and Anticipated Harm

The condition's visibility does not eliminate duty. Address whether reasonable care required precautions despite any obviousness and whether the possessor should have anticipated harm:

• [Describe visibility, contrast, lighting, and warnings]
• [Describe available routes and why the claimant encountered the condition]
• [Describe prior incidents, recurring conditions, or other foreseeability evidence]
• [Explain why reasonable inspection, repair, guarding, or warning would have reduced the risk]

C. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached its duty by:

1. Failure to Discover the Hazard:
   Your insured failed to conduct reasonable inspections that would have revealed the dangerous condition.

2. Failure to Correct or Warn:
   Your insured failed to remedy the hazardous condition or provide adequate warnings.

3. 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

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

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

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 enclosed evidence supports the position that your insured failed to exercise reasonable care under the current Michigan framework. Customize this conclusion to the actual proof of the condition, notice, anticipated harm, causation, and comparative fault.

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 Conditions: After Kandil-Elsayed, openness and obviousness concern breach and comparative fault rather than eliminating duty. The former “special aspects” gateway is overruled.

• Snow and Ice: Analyze visibility, anticipated harm, reasonable precautions, and comparative fault under Kandil-Elsayed; do not use a categorical no-duty rule.

• Comparative Fault: Fault over 50% bars noneconomic damages, while economic damages remain subject to percentage reduction. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2959.

• Case Evaluation: A money-damages action may be submitted to case evaluation under MCR 2.403, but the rule was amended effective January 1, 2022 to eliminate the former case-evaluation sanctions.

• Judgment Interest: Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013 generally calculates interest on a money judgment from the complaint-filing date, subject to its rate formula, future-damages exclusion, and tort-offer provisions.

• Governmental Immunity: Section 691.1404's 120-day notice is specific to defective-highway claims; State claims ordinarily require separate § 600.6431 analysis.

• Venue: Confirm venue under Michigan's defendant- and claim-specific statutes before filing.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Michigan Legislature, MCL § 600.5805: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-5805
• Michigan Legislature, MCL § 600.5827: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-5827
• Michigan Legislature, MCL §§ 600.2957 and 600.2959: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-2957 and https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-2959
• Michigan Legislature, MCL § 691.1404: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-691-1404
• Michigan Legislature, MCL § 600.6431: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-6431
• Michigan Legislature, MCL § 600.6013: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-600-6013
• Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil, Inc.; Pinsky v. Kroger Co. of Michigan (official opinion): https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/case-documents/uploads/opinions/final/sct/162907_79_01.pdf
• Michigan Judicial Institute, Missing Physical Evidence: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4a271f/siteassets/publications/benchbooks/evidence/evidenceresponsivehtml5.zip/Evidence/Ch_1_General/Missing_Physical_Evidence.htm
• Michigan Court Rule 2.403 (current rules): https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/michigan-court-rules/michigan-court-rules-responsive-html5.zip/Michigan_Court_Rules/Court_Rules_Chapter_2/Court_Rules_Chapter_2.htm