Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Missouri

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF MISSOURI

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

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, Missouri. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.

I. MISSOURI-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Missouri Revised Statutes § 516.120(4) generally provides a five-year period for an injury-to-person action not otherwise enumerated. Under § 516.100, accrual occurs when the resulting damage is sustained and capable of ascertainment, not automatically when the wrong or technical breach occurs. Calculate the deadline from the claim-specific accrual facts and any special rule.

B. Missouri Pure Comparative Fault

Missouri follows pure comparative fault under Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983). A plaintiff may recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault, regardless of whether the plaintiff's fault exceeds that of the defendant. (Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 537.765 codifies comparative fault for products-liability actions and is not the source of the general negligence rule.)

Our client was exercising all reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident.

C. Missouri Premises Liability Standards

Traditional Classifications Apply:
Missouri retains the common law classifications of entrants with corresponding duties:

1. Invitees (Business Visitors):
Under Harris v. Niehaus, 857 S.W.2d 222, 225-26 (Mo. banc 1993), a possessor may be liable to an invitee for a condition on the land when the possessor knows or through reasonable care would discover the condition and should realize it presents an unreasonable risk; should expect that invitees will not discover, realize, or protect themselves from it; and fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them.

Our client was a business invitee. The applicable duty depends on the condition, the possessor's actual or constructive knowledge, what the possessor reasonably should expect the invitee to perceive or do, and the precautions reasonably required under the circumstances.

D. Missouri "Open and Obvious" Doctrine

Under Harris, §§ 343 and 343A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts accurately state Missouri law. An open and obvious condition can negate breach as a matter of law when the possessor reasonably may rely on invitees to perceive and protect themselves from it. A duty may remain when the possessor should anticipate harm despite the invitee's knowledge or the condition's obviousness. The analysis is circumstance-specific, not automatically resolved as comparative fault.

Here, the hazardous condition was NOT open and obvious because: [Explain].

E. Missouri Snow and Ice Liability

Analyze a snow-or-ice condition under the Harris framework: identify the precise condition, possession and control, actual or constructive knowledge, unreasonable risk, obviousness, anticipated invitee conduct, and the reasonableness of the response. This template does not assume a categorical removal deadline or a natural-versus-unnatural accumulation rule without claim-specific authority.

[If snow/ice case:] Your insured failed to exercise ordinary care in addressing the snow and ice accumulation. [If unnatural:] The ice condition was an unnatural accumulation caused by [describe how owner's conduct created or aggravated the condition].

F. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

Missouri Sovereign Immunity — Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 537.600 and 537.610:
Missouri does not impose a general 90-day notice requirement on every claim against the State. Section 537.600 preserves public-entity immunity except for statutory waivers, including qualifying dangerous conditions of public property with the specified creation-or-notice proof. Section 537.610 supplies annually adjusted liability limits and bars punitive or exemplary damages on covered public-entity claims. Separately, § 82.210 requires written notice to the mayor within 90 days only for injuries from defects in a bridge, boulevard, street, sidewalk, or thoroughfare in a city with at least 100,000 inhabitants. Identify the entity, property, waiver, insurance, local law, and any special notice statute before proceeding.

[If applicable:] Proper notice was provided on [Date].

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE

Please take reasonable steps to preserve potentially relevant 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

Missouri's common-law spoliation inference concerns intentional destruction or significant alteration of evidence indicating a desire to suppress the truth. Brown v. Hamid, 856 S.W.2d 51, 56-57 (Mo. banc 1993). This request identifies evidence that may be relevant if the claim proceeds to litigation.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type] in [City], [County] County, Missouri. 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. There were no warning signs or barriers in place.

Ice/Snow: Ice and/or snow created a hazardous condition at [location]. [If unnatural accumulation, describe how the owner's conduct created or aggravated the condition.]

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

As a business invitee, our client's claim is governed by the reasonable-care framework stated in Harris v. Niehaus, 857 S.W.2d 222, 225-26 (Mo. banc 1993).

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached this duty by:

1. Failure to Maintain Safe Premises:
   [Describe specific failures]

2. Actual or Constructive Knowledge:
   Your insured [created the hazardous condition / had actual knowledge of the condition / had constructive knowledge because the condition existed for a sufficient period that it should have been discovered through ordinary care].

C. The Condition Was Not Open and Obvious

The hazardous condition was not open and obvious because:

• [Explain why the hazard was not apparent to a reasonable person]
• [Describe any factors that concealed or disguised the danger]

D. Causation

The dangerous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and injuries.

E. Comparative Fault Defense

Missouri follows pure comparative fault. Even if the plaintiff bears some fault, recovery is reduced but not barred. However, our client was free from fault:

• [Evidence of due care by client]

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 claims the following non-economic harms, subject to the law applicable to the particular claim and defendant:

• Physical pain and suffering
• Emotional distress
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• [Other non-economic damages]

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 evidence described above supports our client's position that your insured failed to exercise reasonable care and caused the claimed injuries. We urge prompt resolution.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MISSOURI-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Five-Year General Limitation: Sections 516.100 and 516.120 generally use five years after damage is sustained and capable of ascertainment, subject to claim-specific rules.

• Pure Comparative Fault: Missouri allows recovery regardless of plaintiff's percentage of fault (reduced accordingly).

• Public-Entity Limits: Section 537.610 imposes annually adjusted public-entity limits and bars punitive or exemplary damages on covered claims.

• Joint and Several Liability: Under § 537.067, a defendant bearing 51% or more fault is jointly and severally liable for the judgment; a defendant below 51% generally owes only its proportionate share, subject to the statute's exceptions.

• Punitive Damages: For actions filed on or after August 28, 2020, Section 510.261 requires clear and convincing evidence of intentional harm without just cause or deliberate and flagrant disregard for the safety of others; the initial pleading may not claim punitive damages.

• Snow and Ice: Apply the claim-specific Harris condition, knowledge, obviousness, anticipated-harm, and reasonable-care analysis.

• Venue: When a tort plaintiff was first injured in Missouri, § 508.010 generally places venue in the county where the plaintiff was first injured by the alleged conduct. Different rules apply when the plaintiff was first injured outside Missouri.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 516.100, 516.120 — https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=516.100; https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=516.120
• Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.067 — https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=537.067
• Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 537.600, 537.610 — https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=537.600; https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=537.610
• Mo. Rev. Stat. § 82.210 — https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=82.210
• Mo. Rev. Stat. § 510.261 — https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=510.261
• Mo. Rev. Stat. § 508.010 — https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=508.010
• Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983)
• Harris v. Niehaus, 857 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. banc 1993)
• Brown v. Hamid, 856 S.W.2d 51 (Mo. banc 1993)