DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL
STATE OF MINNESOTA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Minnesota ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Minnesota
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, Minnesota. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.
I. MINNESOTA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Statute of Limitations
Under Minnesota Statutes Section 541.05, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is six (6) 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. Minnesota Comparative Fault
Minnesota follows modified comparative fault under Minn. Stat. Section 604.01. A plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. However, a plaintiff whose fault exceeds the total fault of the defendants is barred from recovery (i.e., plaintiff must be 50% or less at fault to recover).
Our client was exercising all reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident.
C. Minnesota Premises Liability Standards
Peterson v. Balach Standard:
In Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 199 N.W.2d 639 (1972), Minnesota adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 343 approach to premises liability. A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to invitees by a condition on the land if:
- The possessor knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, AND
- The possessor should expect that invitees will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, AND
- The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitees against the danger.
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 199 N.W.2d 639 (1972).
D. Minnesota Snow and Ice Liability
General Rule - Duty to Remove:
Minnesota property owners do have a duty to exercise reasonable care to remove or remediate snow and ice accumulations within a reasonable time. Unlike some states, Minnesota has not adopted a blanket natural accumulation rule that immunizes property owners.
Key Principles:
- Property owners must take reasonable steps to maintain safe premises, including addressing snow and ice
- The reasonableness of the response is evaluated considering the circumstances (time since precipitation, severity, weather conditions, etc.)
- Actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition is required
Baber v. Dill, 531 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. 1995); Block v. Target Stores, Inc., 458 N.W.2d 705 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
Municipal Liability:
Minnesota Statutes Section 466.03 provides immunity for municipalities regarding claims arising from snow and ice on public sidewalks, with exceptions.
[If snow/ice case:] Your insured failed to exercise reasonable care in addressing the snow and ice accumulation at the subject premises.
E. Notice Requirements for Government Claims
Minnesota Tort Claims Act (Minn. Stat. Section 466.01 et seq.):
Claims against Minnesota municipalities require notice within 180 days of the injury. Minn. Stat. Section 466.05.
[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, contracts, and salt/sand application records
- Prior complaints and prior incidents
- Photographs of the incident location
Minnesota courts recognize spoliation claims and may impose sanctions, including adverse inference instructions. Patton v. Newmar Corp., 538 N.W.2d 116 (Minn. 1995).
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Premises
The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type] in [City], [County] County, Minnesota. 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 and dangerous surface. There were no warning signs or barriers in place.
Ice/Snow: Ice and/or snow created a hazardous condition at [location]. Your insured failed to take reasonable steps to remove or remediate this hazard within a reasonable time after the precipitation event.
Uneven Surface/Tripping Hazard: A [defect] created a tripping hazard.
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
Under the Peterson v. Balach standard, your insured owed our client, a business invitee, a duty to:
- Discover dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
- Recognize that the condition involved an unreasonable risk of harm
- Exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from the danger
Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 199 N.W.2d 639 (1972).
B. Breach of Duty
Your insured breached this duty by:
-
Failure to Discover the Hazard:
Your insured failed to conduct reasonable inspections. -
Failure to Correct or Warn:
Your insured failed to remedy the condition or warn of the danger. -
Actual or Constructive Notice:
Your insured [created the condition / had actual knowledge / had constructive knowledge because the condition existed for sufficient time to be discovered through reasonable inspection].
[If snow/ice case:]
4. Failure to Exercise Reasonable Care with Snow/Ice:
Under Baber v. Dill and Minnesota premises liability principles, your insured was required to exercise reasonable care in removing or remediating snow and ice. Your insured failed to do so within a reasonable time.
C. The Hazard Was Not Open and Obvious
Minnesota follows the Restatement approach, which considers whether the invitee would be expected to discover the danger. Here:
- [Explain why the hazard was not discoverable by the invitee]
- [Describe any factors that obscured the danger]
D. Causation
The dangerous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries.
E. Comparative Fault Defense Rejected
Our client was free from fault:
- [Evidence of due care by client]
- The hazard was not reasonably observable
- Our client had no reason to anticipate the danger
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
Minnesota does not cap non-economic damages in personal injury cases. Our client has experienced:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- [Other non-economic damages]
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 under Minnesota's Peterson v. Balach standard. Your insured failed to maintain safe premises and our client was injured as a direct result. We urge prompt resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Minnesota Attorney Registration No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: As noted above
cc: [Client Name]
File
MINNESOTA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
-
Six-Year Statute of Limitations: Minnesota has one of the longest statutes of limitations for personal injury claims.
-
Peterson v. Balach Standard: Based on Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 343.
-
Comparative Fault: Modified (51% bar). Joint and several liability has been modified in Minnesota.
-
Snow/Ice Liability: Minnesota does NOT follow a strict natural accumulation rule. Property owners have a duty of reasonable care.
-
No Damage Caps: No caps on economic or non-economic damages (punitive damages are capped at greater of $75,000 or three times compensatory damages up to $500,000).
-
ADR Requirement: Many Minnesota courts require ADR before trial.
-
Prejudgment Interest: 4% above secondary market yield on one-year Treasury bills.
-
Venue: County where cause of action arose or where defendant resides. Minn. Stat. Section 542.09.